Exploded View Discussion

[zwei]

Do you create exploded view in drawing?

How do you handle exploded view that is too cluttered?

Sometimes I came across exploded view that is so messy that i cant even understand which part is assembled to where and end up just go back looking at the CAD.

I do split the exploded view sometimes into different phase/step, but it is really time consuming to do that...

Just wondering what others is doing with exploded view.

[mike miller]

Using the correct non-orthogonal view can make the difference between a spaghetti mess and a professional looking drawing. It can take some time to get it oriented correctly and not be confusing to assembly "hammer wielders".

Also, if there are multiple fastener stacks or cartridges, etc. it is usually better to create a new drawing view with a separate exploded view for each.

[MJuric]

Do you create exploded view in drawing?

How do you handle exploded view that is too cluttered?

Sometimes I came across exploded view that is so messy that i cant even understand which part is assembled to where and end up just go back looking at the CAD.

I do split the exploded view sometimes into different phase/step, but it is really time consuming to do that...

Just wondering what others is doing with exploded view.

AS with all things in SW smaller is better

Doing large exploded views that are clear and concise takes time. I don't think there is anyway around that. Multiple steps are essentially mandatory for clarity if you have multiple steps of assembly. I find that the exploded view often follows the assembly process and also why I think exploded views, even if not used in the drawing, are a good exercise on complex assemblies. Often times it forces the "Well how the hell am I going to get that screw in there" type of questions if the exploded view is done in the order of assembly.

Making exploded views that are not cluttered on a drawing is matter of proper "Assembly/Disassembly". Often times it is necessary to remove an entire S/A, Show it being moved, in the exploded view and have that S/A exploded elsewhere.

You can only do this with multiple steps often with manually entered trails etc. That takes time.

[zwei]

Using the correct non-orthogonal view can make the difference between a spaghetti mess and a professional looking drawing. It can take some time to get it oriented correctly and not be confusing to assembly "hammer wielders".

I had never thought of this. Seem like a great idea for some of the assembly exploded view



Definitely agree that sometimes it is much clearer to have multiple exploded view

As a lot of time we are creating separate Work Instruction document for assembly, it just make me feel like i am creating exploded view for the sake of exploding, since the view is not really used anyway...

I recently had an assembly with 83 line item in the bom and the thought of creating the exploded view for the assembly already give me a bad headache

Oh did i mention i am creating it in CREO where you cant have different simplified rep (configuration) that tied to the same BOM? So the balloon number for multiple exploded view is always a headache to me in CREO.

[HerrTick]

As was said, view orientation is key. Start with an angle that best shows assembly and fastener direction.

I prefer trimetric over iso. I like having the two "horizontal" vectors at different angles from view horizontal. Seems to help visuals.

Sometimes I use a custom view, but the assembly "vertical" is always vertical w.r.t. drawing vertical.

[SPerman]

AS with all things in SW smaller is better

Multiple steps are essentially mandatory for clarity if you have multiple steps of assembly. I find that the exploded view often follows the assembly process and also why I think exploded views, even if not used in the drawing, are a good exercise on complex assemblies.


You can only do this with multiple steps often with manually entered trails etc. That takes time.

Is it possible to have a drawing view of each step of the explosion process? I was trying to do this for an assembly manual recently and could only create a drawing view of the full explosion, not each step used to create that explosion.

[matt]

Is it possible to have a drawing view of each step of the explosion process? I was trying to do this for an assembly manual recently and could only create a drawing view of the full explosion, not each step used to create that explosion.

Once I made assembly instructions for something about the size of a VCR player. I used configurations to do it. I made a separate assembly, didn't use the assembly for production drawings because I had to reconfigure things. Each configuration had an explode step, and each explode step had a drawing sheet. It was very slow. We had a lot of wiring, sheet metal, circuit boards, etc, but it looked great.

[SPerman]

That's the direction I was headed, before I decided it was way too much work for the project at hand.

[MJuric]

Is it possible to have a drawing view of each step of the explosion process? I was trying to do this for an assembly manual recently and could only create a drawing view of the full explosion, not each step used to create that explosion.

Only way I would know to do it would be to have a configuration with each explode step you wanted to show. So "Explode1" config would have step one of the explode. "Explode2" would have Step1 and Step 2 and so on. This would not be to horrible to do as long as you did you steps with specific offset distances and could repeat them in each config because I do not know if you can copy exploded configs.

yeah....what matt said

[MJuric]

That's the direction I was headed, before I decided it was way too much work for the project at hand.

The only other approach I have used is to just set up the main assemblies with S/A's that would match the explode process you want to so. So you explode moving all the S/A's then go into each S/A and explode those. Then just show exploded views of the main assy and all the subs.

Depending on how the assy is designed that may be more or less work that the afore mentioned approach.

[zwei]

That's the direction I was headed, before I decided it was way too much work for the project at hand.

Have you consider trying SOLIDWORKS Composer?

I heard some good feedback on it but do not have a chance to try it.

[JSculley]

That's the direction I was headed, before I decided it was way too much work for the project at hand.

You can have multiple exploded views tied a single configuration. There is a trick though. You have to make a second configuration to copy the exploded views to, but then you can copy as many times as you like from the original.

You can do a full exploded view, copy it X times, delete the non-relevant steps from each copy and show each of those in the drawing. You can even name them Step 1, Step 2 to keep it organized.

[zwei]

You can have multiple exploded views tied a single configuration. There is a trick though. You have to make a second configuration to copy the exploded views to, but then you can copy as many times as you like from the original.

You can do a full exploded view, copy it X times, delete the non-relevant steps from each copy and show each of those in the drawing. You can even name them Step 1, Step 2 to keep it organized.

image.png

An interesting approach... I just learnt that you can copy exploded view into different config
(http://help.solidworks.com/2019/english ... 20%2B%20C.)

If after copy the exploded view, I suppress the unwanted part in the step, will it cause any issue further downstream? I noticed that after I suppress the part, the exploded step involving the part is not suppressed, some of the step become literally empty when i try to edit.

Also the exploded line seem to messed up if i copy from the full exploded view?

Or am i doing something wrong here?

Edit:
Maybe i should copy from the step1 exploded view instead of the full exploded view... this seem to solve most of the issue

[CarrieIves]

I use multiple display states and multiple explodes. The image below shows one of my current assemblies. I try to have a similar name between the explode and the display state.

@Zhen-Wei Tee , in CREO, you can do something similar. I don't remember the name of it, but it is a view state or display state that you want to change instead of using simplified reps. This will make the BOM and balloons work the way you want.

[Ömür Tokman]

I don't work with very large assemblies but sometimes I work with complex assemblies. Sometimes I use Matt's method, sometimes I show the entire exploded drawing on the first page and get a few detail views, I use one page for each detail view, so I can fit the detail view fully onto one page and make it look clear and understandable. mostly the assembly subcontractors are satisfied with the drawings.

[jayar]

An interesting approach... I just learnt that you can copy exploded view into different config
(http://help.solidworks.com/2019/english ... 20%2B%20C.)

If after copy the exploded view, I suppress the unwanted part in the step, will it cause any issue further downstream? I noticed that after I suppress the part, the exploded step involving the part is not suppressed, some of the step become literally empty when i try to edit.

Also the exploded line seem to messed up if i copy from the full exploded view?
image.png

Or am i doing something wrong here?

Edit:
Maybe i should copy from the step1 exploded view instead of the full exploded view... this seem to solve most of the issue

How do you get those center lines in there? Are you adding them? (I hope you tell me there is a switch to check for them to be automatic!)

[JSculley]

How do you get those center lines in there? Are you adding them? (I hope you tell me there is a switch to check for them to be automatic!)

Semi-automatic. See:

http://help.solidworks.com/2021/english ... e_line.htm

and

http://help.solidworks.com/2021/english ... _lines.htm