• This forum is the machine-generated translation of www.cad3d.it/forum1 - the Italian design community. Several terms are not translated correctly.

replace a component

  • Thread starter Thread starter dema
  • Start date Start date

dema

Guest
then without using family table because I cannotLet us say that I have to replace the yellow compost with one obtained from the same with a copy save with name and to which I only changed the length now because the replace command blows all the constraints, that is both the ties of the yellow towards the red but also the green towards the new yellow.

how do you behave when you have to replace a component with another :confused:
 
if the component I have to replace it with a new one (of which I still have to make the drawing but that I know to be very similar to the one already inserted) I replace it for copy and then I go to change it.so I have the same references.
if I have to replace it with a detail that in my files already exists I replace it by layout and at this point I have to reset the mating references.
 
If only the length changes you can create the new part in the family table, in this way the positionings should not be redefined as they are the same in the main and derived variant.
 
Unfortunately replace with copy as you can see from the attachments only works if I replace a part but I have to replace a set.
 
of no interface that... if it is something that leads to having to archive to pdm the old component will explain to me as well, but do not tire too much because they are several remains to archive to pdm the details that have not undergone modifications.
 
the component interface is an advanced mating system that should avoid loss of relationships, as the mating elements are defined a priori.
In practice it is as if a face of a solid or a reference plan had a name and a surname and if these are equal in the element that replaces it you have no problems with loss of relationships.
the command finds it in insert>reference model interface> component.
look for the topic on the guide and study it... is a very interesting topic.
the system is used for example in automatic couplings of the screws.
if the screw has its interface and finds its correspondence in the axieme it goes to place automatically in its hole.
 
you know it, some screws have in fact already default an insert and a mate.

but to do this I would be forced to put hand also which components archived and this I can not do.. .

... if you have other ideas...
 
I see it hard... no family table, no interfaces, at the moment nothing comes to me.
Let's see if someone passing through lights up some bulbs.

but what is all this rigidity due to?
 
synthesizing:
when replacing a component the references of the new comonant may not be the same as they have a different id (unless the component with both a family table variant of the replaced component), so the program returns an error message that can be resolved with the redefinition of the couplings;
If you frequently have this type of needs you have to use the system I have indicated, defining in the axieme and in the parts the component interfaces.

I don't know other systems.
 
Prof. said:
but do a save copy and replace with an unrelated component you can not?
Click to expand...
Of course that you can but have to redefine all the constraints is a nuisance imagined that I have two plates of a base with a dozen bound components (so at least 30 constraints) whose only differences are the material or the thickness, or in one there are extra holes, what you want, it seems obvious to me that the base plate cannot be managed by a family table.

they told me that once I talk about versions from 14 to 18 it was a little less skeptical if waxing a hole pin coupling and the component was a derivative of a safe copy named pro/e at least we tried
 
Why does it seem obvious that it cannot be managed in family table? and why is it not possible to use component interfaces?
 
maxopus said:
synthesizing:
when replacing a component the references of the new comonant may not be the same as they have a different id (unless the component with both a family table variant of the replaced component), so the program returns an error message that can be resolved with the redefinition of the couplings;
If you frequently have this type of needs you have to use the system I have indicated, defining in the axieme and in the parts the component interfaces.

I don't know other systems.
Click to expand...
in nx that is less sketchy than bvp, enters the component, from any name to entities in coupling (a, b, c, etc.).
save as of the component... from the new (also made from zero) the same names (a, b, c, etc) and the coupling is done on the names and not on the id.
Are you sure you can't do this in the bvp?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
44,997
Messages
339,767
Members
4
Latest member
ibt

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 0 (members: 0, guests: 0)
ciao
Back
Top