You should always represent thing like they are in real (hinge in 2 or 3 parts ).
That is a matter of opinion and dependent on the need for a hinge as an assy in downstream workflows. In my case there is no need to document the hinge as an assy and the single part approach is simpler and more efficient. The same is true or linear motion cylinders. (If it works reliably, and it seems to so far)
I really considered going to hinges that swivel and are controlled. There are many other factors:
#1. The door is re-sizable. I have two dimensions that control the size of the opening, that in turn control the size of the door. The prevent using FOP/FOA. Because the create the size of the door in it's closed position. I then make a new assembly using a copy of the door and the other components welded to the door to create the open position that is re-sized.
#2. I desire to show both the open and closed position in a single draft. And, for proposal drawing, one of my last decision is the door open vs. closed. This depends on if the inside of whatever the door is covering was modeled or not...dependent on client specifics.
#3. I need both positions of the door available at the same time for Spring/Air cylinder analysis sketches. How far the door open vs. the position of some components is a manual balance based on experience.
Have you looked at my drawing. With FOA you can do all that. I' dont really understand how you modelled your door but It is not supposed to interfere with FOA. When you say door is re-sizable. what do you mean ? Are you in ordered or synchronous?
That's cool. My stuff is one step more complicated because everything is made from sheet metal that can vary in both gage and material. Because of the possibility of various materials/gages, I use planes to control the sheet metal design to keep the results the same.
It the use of planes the prevents the use of FOP/FOA
Thanks for your video. I did some experiments with driving an assembly with an adjustable part, in this case a hinge. It works ok in one instance of an assembly. However, if you have two of the same door assemblies in a higher level asm and if you want each door assembly to be open at different angles it appears to not be possible. The second instance of the assembly is not really usable as an adjustable assembly.
It is indeed true, as you say, it is best to model the hinge as an assembly of two or three parts and use the angular relationship between the leaves of the hinge as the adjustable assembly variable.
This easily allows two or more door assemblies to be set at different angles in the same top assembly.
The best way I've find is making an assembly with the hinge components. Constraint them with so it react like a real hinge (with an range angle constraint). Make the assembly as a weldment assembly so it appear as one piece in BOM and drawings.
Put the weldment assembly in my assembly. Contraints parts. Make the hinge assembly ajustable. Create an angle constraints between doors. Create alternate positions assembly with the angle as a variable. You can then use it in drawings And hinge appears as only one part.
I don't follow the relevance of using weldment. It's just an assembly and appears the same as any assembly at higher levels or in BOMs.
Also, I didn't create angle constraints at the assembly level between door parts. I'm using the angle constraint at the hinge assy level.