catalog correctly and find drawing files: how do you do?

[Parametric_Ozzy]

No

I have understood little, the words in violet I do not know them (I do not know exactly what they mean) and hard to follow you, but from what little I can perceive, I feel like science fiction...addirittura manage what can be used here and what can be used there!!!:finger:
a courtesy, otherwise we really risk increasing my confusion,
If you can, try to "resolve" with windchill my initial questions/examples 1.2 and 3 and we do not start there.thanks again to everyone and soon!
ps: windchill works with swx?

I would not say science fiction, rather I would say things indispensable for the management you want to do of your machines.
ok as soon as I have a moment of time in free mind I reread everything and tell you how you could handle it with windchill.
ps: yes also works with swx and other mcad or ecad of third parties
greetings

 

[reggio]

As soon as I have a moment of time in my free mind I reread everything and tell you how you could handle it

Okay, I really do.
And I'm counting on you guys all right? :finger:
to be very close!

 

[Ivan1990]

hi to everyone, we have been using for 4 years 3d and for 3 years pdm.
Obviously we have not understood the philosophy of both because we find ourselves more messed up and lost than before, so I decided to post here our doubts in the hope of finding a suggestion/help to unravel the masses.

advance that we use solidworks 2012 sp.3 and ready2w 2011->2012 and that in the past we used and then abandoned dbcent.
I also press that, at this point, the ideas are few but very confused, so I ask you patience from now on if I will not be able to follow a logical thread jumping of pole in bait with reasonings to voice high.. .

our biggest unresolved problems are:
1) memorize (components, subaxis, assemblies) with correct name and in the correct place, completely define the characteristics, so to find them definitely and quickly, in order to avoid doubles, increase standardization, reuse them several times:
example for parts: a round piece diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 by both sides for us could call:
- tree (if used in the machine mod.a)
-through (if used in the machine mod.b)
- spacer (if used in the machine mod.c)
- spike (if used in the machine mod.d)
-tray (if used in the machine mod.e)

if first, with the 2d in each machine folder (a,b,c,...) could contain the same design or a design encoded in a different way but basically with the same shape risking having to update 7 designs for each modification and maybe find yourself with some not updated drawings, now with the 3d, having a single shared file, we would have to solve the problem of updates, but precisely we find ourselves with the problem of not knowing how to call and where to store this to the same to 20x300
trees
transverse
space
dots
tyrants
machines to,machines b,machines c,machines ...So, how do I call him and where do I put him?Besides, whenever we use this piece to create a new one, we have the problem of describing it so unique,Order e Clear per All users who will look for it!!! and as we have suggested not to use descriptions related to the machine in which it is used neither to its application because if we use it also in another machine or application, finding it could become difficult, it seems that the only possible way is to describe the part in a meticulous and complete way as for example:
cod.1 round diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides.
cod.2 round diameter 25 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides.
cod.3 round diameter 15 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides.
cod.4 round diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 2 internal seeger seats 200.
cod.5 round diameter 20 l=300, perforated and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 2 internal seeger seats 210.
cod.6 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 1 seeger seat + 1 8x50 key seat.
cod.7 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 1 seeger seat + 1 8x50 key seat.
... but also in this way it appears immediately clear that, if for such a simple piece the description is so long, for more complex pieces the description would become very long and complex to load and then search (the cod.6 has the seeger seat at 15mm from the edge while the cod.7 would have 32mm from the edge, to differentiate them I would have therefore to add other description. . . )So how would you describe it? or better, how do you think? What system do you adopt?...for sub-sub-sub-assistances, sub-assistances and assemblies, reasoning is identical, but things are complicated exponentially. . .
you have present the types of "street custom" that customize cars, take a mercedes class to with various standard accessories (which already would be difficult to describe in a line) and add and change other parts ... here, we do similar things with our machines.. .in this case how do you think? What system do you adopt?2) manage updates/modifications/historical of a piece and the improvements applied. . .
example: we created the cod.1 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides, and we used it until now in 12 similar but not equal machines, now we are creating the 13th and we realize that, it would be better and from the beginning use the m10 fillets instead of m8 so we would like:
- maintain memory of how the first 12 machines were built for future spare parts.
- signal that that part (cod.1), from now on will have to be replaced with the cod.8 that will have m10 so that even if we take the 4th car as a base to make the 14th, we remember not to use the cod.1 but instead cod.8 (even if for the car 4 will continue to exist only cod.1).
the ns pdm currently compels us to create cod.8 from cod.1 and replaces cod.1 with cod.8 in all the assemblies that contained cod.1 (then distorting the original past) and keeps only memory that cod.8 before was cod.1 .... :how do you do these things?3) find all the "things" inherent to the model machines series a: some parts will be stored in family traverses, others in dyes, other in commercial, others still in group motorization and so on... we often need to check if we have already drawn a certain part or a certain subaxieme for this or that family of machines: first, with the 2d we would go to the folder of the machine that contained all the drawings related to the machine or the family of machines, now instead we find ourselves with the pieces "disappeared" in dozens of families and groups:come fate voi?...continue. . .

1-I would create a component folder (where you make the folders of your components divided by type, example components>cylindro>diameter>name file d20l300m10x2
In short, in the file name I would put the basic features, for example if you need also the key location c-22x41x160 for the location I would manage it with the configurations whenever you need new positions I create a new configuration that I will appoint as best I think.
then I would create a named folder machine, and inside folders named with the name of the machine. for each machine I would save all parts individually by adding to the end of the component name es [Mac12TipA] so I know the component differs in the name and I know that that standar component is in that machine and I come in to see if I made changes or not.

2-as said before now I would have my 12 folders named mac_a_n1 n2 etc... in their interior all standard components raised by name at the end of the machine in brackets, if I want to make a mac_a_n1 change within its folder I will create a new name mac_a_n1[Rev01] inside I create a written word file or block notes where I put corrections or changes. If I want to create a new machine starting from an existing creo folder mac_a_n13 I create a temporary folder where I save a copy of the mac_a_n4, and I make all the changes I need to create the n13 after that to machine finished except in the main folder of the machine.

at least so it is as I would(I premise that I have no pdm and things like that. :biggrin::finger:

 

[Jarno]

Why? because as I tried to explain in my example, the same piece I can use it in various ways (such as trees, beams, spacers, studs, etc.) so if I don't want to miss I should be able to find cod.1 or cod.c1.050.01.001 whether I do a search between the trees or the beams or the spacers or the studs... and this ready does not allow me (or at least I am not able to do it) while jarno that does not use any pdm, this problem has solved it (prob. he remains the problem of finding all the machines that have assembled that piece)

I don't even have that problem. simply link the machine into the folder, the only risk is that it remains a link even if I do not use + that part.
But all I'm talking, beyond the fact that you need to understand what you can do your pdm is the result of a setting, your (still before the pdm), hectic.
especially since you have worked for years with a cad 2d by now the case of the royal pieces you knew, ergo:
If you're interested in making the most of the possibilities, you have to reason how ivan did in point1, you have to use a code with description+progressive+ relase, so
d20l300m10x2 and below
d20l300m10x2
use searchable internal parameters in the database of the pieces that indicate:
tree
works (which are a finished n.ro: hollow tabs, hole grooves)
notes that help to know more features.
in the code part I would describe for heads and since x you it is very important to use the stuff, in the parameters (i.e. fields ownership of the file) add the rest, including the function
es: it is a tree full of title that of the drums, but it is a geometrical tree also that reinforcement you put in the nps-a that are simple reinforcement dots.

the + important thing of all though it is cmq to avoid putting an old type dot, then work with revision code and it would be better to put a flag in the old who indicate that it is obsolete.
(I say so disinterested, as images :biggrin

using part configurations within which you can also put cod. 8 as property.
the idea would not be wrong (by adding notes to the part would be perfect) but the assistance of swx does not recommend the use "massive"(?) of configurations: "if you exaggerate it could mess up" and still ready treats configurations like new and separate codes (create own separate files...) and forgets who is son.. .

but:
1) say ca**ate xkè if you look at how it works with tubulars provided by them as pre-finished, do not create (as cursed inv) 10 pieces of tubular 40x40x3 with 10 lengths, but create 10 configurations of the library file them.. .
2) you don't listen to me, did I tell you that it was fundamental in swx to have configurations? and the multibody?
you have to try to work on the strengths, evidently ready is a pdm a little so,, on the generas... What costs? It's just that, isn't it?
windchill that's dad pro-and definitely does things to you "that you humans... "
only that these aspects including concepts of "actuality" "planned date" were thought "dry" before then six ... erm ... framed. . .

 

[cacciatorino]

Reggio kindly asked me for an opinion via mp, and so I intervene after reading his first post.

to answer on the various points:

1) I would never use, even under threat of death, the talking codes! :biggrin: more than you have a pdm with sql database, and then use metadata and do it with those! for codes used progressive, possibly differentiated only between machine, group and particular: of the type:
machine codes codificio them with a code 3xxx where x is a progressive, groups 4xxxx, details 5xxxx, etc.

2) here I think there is confusion about the concept of revision. if on the old machines there was the hole m8, the same piece must continue to have the hole m8. If I make a change because I saw it's better than m10, what if the old client asks for a replacement? Do I send the piece with the hole m10??? ? Of course I have to send him the piece with the hole m8!
then: if the modified piece is interchangeable with the old --> revision (also compatible with the old machines). if the modified piece is not compatible with the old --> new code, to be used only on new orders. a nice thing when you make a new code from an existing one, is to write somewhere in the file the code of the starting piece: this will facilitate the shop, who has to do the processing cycle, etc.

3) the same way that for 1): ask the sql database to search for all files that in the description (i.e. metadata, not in the file name) have for example the phrase "motorized rebound".

 

[Er Presidente]

...

1) I would never use, even under threat of death, ...

Don't worry, if you use them, I'll fix you, not just threaten you!
:biggrin:

 

[Jarno]

Well, president, what do you want, those are paid x a lot of paper they produce, they're not looking at how if the warehouses and assembly staff! :biggrin::biggrin:
ok, :finger: the completely speaking codes no, parameters (or metadata + correctly) , however as far as possible (it is more difficult to put into practice) inserting info into the piece code is good and right: label the piece with the only code or you put all metadata? It's easier than wrong
513876 and 518376 or between
d20l300_001 and d20l320_001?
what to the rest are of agreement made except there revision of the m10 that:
could be that it is also adaptable to old machines (I had understood so)
I would treat if the pdm or organization is feasible the problem at the level of separate commit ment.
You know that we do this, but you wanted to be cool and now I'm going to repeat myself and be stupid to write to you from the smartphone!

 

[re_solidworks]

1) I would never use, even under threat of death, the talking codes! :biggrin: more than you have a pdm with sql database, and then use metadata and do it with those! for codes used progressive, possibly differentiated only between machine, group and particular: of the type:
machine codes codificio them with a code 3xxx where x is a progressive, groups 4xxxx, details 5xxxx, etc.

This is a speaking code, speaks little, but speaks. without a minimum of reference is hard and as I said above the merceological group is speaking although not being the code that gives the name to the file.

2) here I think there is confusion about the concept of revision. if on the old machines there was the hole m8, the same piece must continue to have the hole m8. If I make a change because I saw it's better than m10, what if the old client asks for a replacement? Do I send the piece with the hole m10??? ? Of course I have to send him the piece with the hole m8!
then: if the modified piece is interchangeable with the old --> revision (also compatible with the old machines). if the modified piece is not compatible with the old --> new code, to be used only on new orders. a nice thing when you make a new code from an existing one, is to write somewhere in the file the code of the starting piece: this will facilitate the shop, who has to do the processing cycle, etc.

In fact, I'm not an expert in serene machines (my sector is not subject) but in order to be able to revise a piece (and not assign it another code) the revision must be compatible with the previous piece, therefore it is possible to send the new detail in place of the old without problems in case of need of spare.

3) the same way that for 1): ask the sql database to search for all files that in the description (i.e. metadata, not in the file name) have for example the phrase "motorized rebound".

the problem is that every piece for reggio must be "taged" in 20 ways, so you create confusion pdm or not pdm.
If I design a tree I will never use it as a dot, from the mechanical point of view they are different needs and can not be built in the same way.
otherwise powers use a perforated flange as a laying thickness of a machine, but it does not make sense and do not. even in this case it would perform its function, but that it is the most not.

 

[re_solidworks]

I don't even have that problem. simply link the machine into the folder, the only risk is that it remains a link even if I do not use + that part.
But all I'm talking, beyond the fact that you need to understand what you can do your pdm is the result of a setting, your (still before the pdm), hectic.
especially since you have worked for years with a cad 2d by now the case of the royal pieces you knew, ergo:
If you're interested in making the most of the possibilities, you have to reason how ivan did in point1, you have to use a code with description+progressive+ relase, so
d20l300m10x2 and below
d20l300m10x2
use searchable internal parameters in the database of the pieces that indicate:
tree
works (which are a finished n.ro: hollow tabs, hole grooves)
notes that help to know more features.
in the code part I would describe for heads and since x you it is very important to use the stuff, in the parameters (i.e. fields ownership of the file) add the rest, including the function
es: it is a tree full of title that of the drums, but it is a geometrical tree also that reinforcement you put in the nps-a that are simple reinforcement dots.

the + important thing of all though it is cmq to avoid putting an old type dot, then work with revision code and it would be better to put a flag in the old who indicate that it is obsolete.
(I say so disinterested, as images :biggrin

but the problem is that for him every detail (or many details) have various uses, so put it as you want it is very difficult to organize something that is not meat and fish.

a question for reggio: where do you put these trees in storage? in the trees? in the dots? in a cassone where there is all the "unclassable" because varied and reusable? think about ready as to a warehouse of codes and drawings and organized coding and structure in the same way... .

1) say ca**ate xkè if you look at how it works with tubulars provided by them as pre-finished, do not create (as cursed inv) 10 pieces of tubular 40x40x3 with 10 lengths, but create 10 configurations of the library file them.. .

if you talk about toolbox depends on how you impose it, it goes in one and another way. Keep in mind that if in a file butti 100 config does not weigh the same way and for those with large assembly problems too many configurations should be avoided:wink:

windchill that's dad pro-and definitely does things to you "that you humans... "
only that these aspects including concepts of "actuality" "planned date" were thought "dry" before then six ... erm ... framed. . .

mah, it will also be true, but the example I posted above was just a case of windchill, of recent implementation. I actually saw things that you humans could throw up!
it will be implemented badly, for sure, but it is a real ball to the foot just, so much so that it is almost abandoned already after a very short time since implementation.

In my opinion, in the case of reggio, a correct analysis of the needs and feasibility has not been made and this generally comes from 2 factors:

- the information was given incompletely or incorrectly by reggio a readysolutions
- readysolutions did not listen to the reggio specifications and did what it wanted during implementation.

 

[re_solidworks]

...but exactly what do you mean by "minded change"?

that you have to make an order first of all in the way of conceiving the product, then on the pdm. who sits in front of the pc to draw should know if what is drawing is a tree or a plug and at that time it is possible to assign a speaking code or a correct and unequivocal merceological group.

1.1)this is the first part of the 1st problem place that I cannot solve with ready, so I ask above all to re_solidworks (because he uses as we ready) and to you how you would do the same thing that gets jarno, that is to find the same code whether I look for "alberi" or "traversi" or ...?

customize a custom with the tag voice and put everything you want to tag the object in multiple ways. My opinion is that doing so only widening research creating further confusion, as I said above you have to decide how to catalog the stuff and you have to do it uniquely. You could, rather, give a priority and that is if it can be both tree and dot (it seems to me to blaspheme!) it should always be classified as a tree. In this way you know that if it can be both the one and the other you will do 2 searches (one in the dots for the "spots" and one in the trees for the "hybrids".
then there is no need for any links, the database creates links and shows them in real time.

1.2)the second part of the 1st problem was: to describe a part completely and if possible a set so as to highlight the small or large differences between similar designs.
I thought I had to create cod.6 cod.7 (the cod.6 has the seeger seat at 15mm from the edge while the cod.7 would have 32mm from the edge).
cod.6 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 1 seeger seat + 1 8x50 key seat.
cod.7 round diameter 20 l=300, drilled and threaded m8x20 from both sides + 1 seeger seat + 1 8x50 key seat.
If I leave as above, you will not be able to appreciate any difference and even ready preview will not help me to locate them (I would have to open them and compare them.. and for a part sometimes it goes well, but if I have 10 similar assemblies even only from 50 components and under assemblies?) to differentiate them I should add other description that however would become very long and complex to load and then search (also from ready they recommend a max of 100 characters)
So again I ask to re_solidworks (why he uses as we ready) and to you how would you distinguish them?

azz.. search will limit itself to 10 trees exactly with the same description, is it too open 5 - 10 files in a cauldron of thousands? I think there are those who would kiss the elbow to find the drawings with this speed!

[Normalizzatore=tabella personalizzabile, saldamente legata alla famiglia (quindi diversa e personalizzabile per ogni famiglia), permette di prevedere, inserire e ricercare i vari parametri/caratteristiche della parte/assieme]means however that (to return to the initial example) I will have to have the separate normalized table for each of these families trees, transverses, spacers, dots, tiranti, machines to,machines b,machines c, macchine, then again to find the cod.1 or cod.c1.050.01.001 I will have to look for in each family: It is very convenient if I remember which family is right, it is absolutely dispersive if I do not remember (and the problem to solve is that I cannot remember everything).
1.3)ps: I am continuing to make examples with the parties, but I hope it is clear to all that the biggest problem, which grows exponentially is to "treat" the sub-axioms and the assemblies: Imagine 2 assemblies from 400 parts and subaxis that differ only because in a there is a small pizza switch with relative bracket in sheet and pin dedicated instead in b there is a micro switch telemecanique with relative bracket in sheet and dedicated pin: how to differentiate them between them and among others? (I put in description the whole distinct? )

I mean, even here I can't normalize, or, in order to do so I should predict in table 800 characteristics to load from time to time (i.e. all possible combinations for that set/subassieme).

is not a customizable table. . Anyway, it's really good not to remember everything. when you open the normalizer you can compose step by step the talking code or the merceological group to restrict the search. add the fields the values on the technical fields that interest you and the game is done. In my opinion chaos arises from the fact that you do not know whether to put in a family or in the other objects and put them a little here and some randomly. You have to give yourself equal rules for all and you have to respect them. no pdm tool prevents you from coding a plate and drawing a tree in 3d, stands at the designer's common sense working with order and you, with the pdm suggestions in encoding, should be advantaged.

 

[re_solidworks]

Uh... Well I think that those who manage to live standardizing 3 always equal sheet metal discs do not need pdm, perhaps even 3d (set up once forget them for a lifetime), the pdm serves precisely (according to our expectations) to help us "standardize" the hundreds of "almost similar" parts we move; as I said above, the management of the commercials that are born and die as they are all another planet than the parts and assemblies.

Well, only in commercials, very partial work (I did almost only the bolt) and time lost I have about 15,000 codes. I would say the normalizer is a great help to univocal discovery. with the nice that if I do not find the right piece I take the most similar and with 1 click the clones and the check the new graphics and the new technical fields.

the merceological group do not know it, if I understand correctly, with this system, cod.1 or cod.c1.050.01.001 will not change, but I will be able to assign (tag?) what code to the family I want and like (e.g. family trees or traverses or spacers or chocolate bars ...) and after having assigned it to the family trees I can realize I am wrong and therefore can I move it and associate it freely (cancella
or, can I associate the cod.1 or cod.c1.050.01.001 with the family trees and the family dots?
If so, you already know that my next question will be to explain immediately how to do it!!!! :

with the merceological group your code can be a simple progressive and the data of "family" normally contained in the code are managed by this object. the beauty is precisely that they can be varied. you can change the family, but you can't choose 2 families at the same time as the series: cum'as does go to mesa and star to ca'? (How do you go to Mass and stay at home?) you can not, or here, or there.
you can create a family for those components that are "both one and the other" but unnecessarily compose things (in my opinion)

these custom fields do not convince us, in practice they are additional columns to support "description" "code"
"created by:" "created the:" being generic (i.e. it is not possible to call it "diam.rullo" because this column is also displayed for bearings, for motors, for assemblies, for everything) we will find ourselves with a column "anonymous" that perhaps contains a description that after a short time risks becoming unclear (e.g. field1=76 what does that mean? is the diameter of the roller or length or what?? ? )

you can give an alias to custom and you can do it as you want. once assigned the alias and activated the custom on the filters and on the list you use it as if it was actually a property with name = alias.
as I said above in a suggestion that I do not like:
customize a custom com "tag" and write them what is the object you are looking for. to always write the same you can customize the suggestions of the custom (it is very easy) and when you do it you just press the finaco arrow of the field and choose in the drop-down menu the correct line.

I have to do some work and I'll have until tomorrow night, so this week... break 0.

If I can... look for a collaborative relationship with readysolutions, you'll jump out of it for sure.

 

[Jarno]

the problem is that every piece for reggio must be "taged" in 20 ways, so you create confusion pdm or not pdm.
If I design a tree I will never use it as a dot, from the mechanical point of view they are different needs and can not be built in the same way.

I think his problem is also that many details do not know how to call them. I am with you 100% that if it is a tree (i.e. a motion transmission organ) it will not be a dot. but also in the structures it ends that you no longer know what name to give to a plate, this is (also) what happens to him

that you have to make an order first of all in the way of conceiving the product, then on the pdm. who sits in front of the pc to draw should know if what is drawing is a tree or a plug and at that time it is possible to assign a speaking code or a correct and unequivocal merceological group.

Infatti.

if you talk about toolbox depends on how you impose it, it goes in one and another way. Keep in mind that if in a file butti 100 config does not weigh the same way and for those with large assembly problems too many configurations should be avoided

he has no big asses, he does machines, even quite small.
his machine components pieces that he tries to succeed and that by hand they take new codes because the customer x asks him 3 extra holes would be to manage with configurations, trusted.
If he had not understood reggio is also my supplier and it is my fault that I have made him buy swx :wink:, mò you enjoy it! :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

 

[re_solidworks]

I think his problem is also that many details do not know how to call them. I am with you 100% that if it is a tree (i.e. a motion transmission organ) it will not be a dot. but also in the structures it ends that you no longer know what name to give to a plate, this is (also) what happens to him

In fact.

he has no big asses, he does machines, even quite small.
his machine components pieces that he tries to succeed and that by hand they take new codes because the customer x asks him 3 extra holes would be to manage with configurations, trusted.
If he had not understood reggio is also my supplier and it is my fault that I have made him buy swx :wink:, mò you enjoy it! :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

I didn't know, but I'd like to see if other cads were able to solve these problems. in my opinion no, solidworks se la cava + che bene in this area and I think it is a great product, with merits and defects, like all systems.
The same goes for ready, in my modest opinion.

But I want to add something: a configuration if you want to rutrova you have to codify it. once you encode the search/manage as if it were a standing code.
if it does not have external references in the model (from topdown) with ready it is easier and faster to create the new code without config, I assure you. with the clona command takes a moment and you get out of trouble.
when you work on the config sometimes you start by believing to add 3 holes and then, with the next request, you find yourself having to handle other processing and / or size that however must remain as before in the other config. management is definitely + difficult. . . .

 

[Jarno]

But I want to add something: a configuration if you want to rutrova you have to codify it. once you encode the search/manage as if it were a standing code.
when you work on the config sometimes you start by believing to add 3 holes and then, with the next request, you find yourself having to handle other processing and / or size that however must remain as before in the other config. management is definitely + difficult. . . .

Look, I basically agree with you. the configured parts I used them in a specific context:
no pdm and revisions of pieces cod. machine (roba mio, I know what changes you make)
If the pdm allows me to arrive with an internal parameter to the file to the "father" for me is ok especially if the 2 pieces have each their own life.
the part conf. are excellent on pieces of machines to list with variants and of course they are codifcate with care!
Bye!

 

[maxopus]

I tried to read the discussion quickly.
I try to propose a solution "spartana" to the speech different names for the same geometry, maybe it is a caxxata but, from the logical point of view it works.
normally it would, not to be advised but, to break down a procedure of this type.
But it happens that the "chief" desires high, dark, smooth hair, young, with emerald colors, very nice, very smart and very rich.

the particular pip in certain contexts can take the pluto or mouse name.
when I have to use it as pluto or mouse, I create two axioms called pluto and mouse and neck within these the pip component.

At this point in distinction I will still have the pip component, only that in the case of use of the pluto type or mouse I will have an extra level.

 

[re_solidworks]

I tried to read the discussion quickly.
I try to propose a solution "spartana" to the speech different names for the same geometry, maybe it is a caxxata but, from the logical point of view it works.
normally it would, not to be advised but, to break down a procedure of this type.
But it happens that the "chief" desires high, dark, smooth hair, young, with emerald colors, very nice, very smart and very rich.

the particular pip in certain contexts can take the pluto or mouse name.
when I have to use it as pluto or mouse, I create two axioms called pluto and mouse and neck within these the pip component.

At this point in distinction I will still have the pip component, only that in the case of use of the pluto type or mouse I will have an extra level.

mmm in this way when you extract a list of components at the first level you will find a component (the famous rename asm) in addition that does not coincide with any processing.
It is not a rule, but I usually for each code I have a design and every design is a cost center for production.
A code makes no sense to exist, in my opinion, if it does not represent a cost or phase of processing for the production of the piece.

 

[maxopus]

mmm in this way when you extract a list of components at the first level you will find a component (the famous rename asm) in addition that does not coincide with any processing.
It is not a rule, but I usually for each code I have a design and every design is a cost center for production.
A code makes no sense to exist, in my opinion, if it does not represent a cost or phase of processing for the production of the piece.

I know, I'm raw, I've worked too much for the gurzi.