problem with different

[teseo]

I have already said how I think it, but I repeat it.
if the element is designed and therefore has a code then it does not need separate cut because it is an upn, a he or other will be specified on the table; if the element has no design because a simple beam manages it as a metrature trade then you have two roads
- toolbox insert
- insertion as part but to manage as equation

Mass excuse, perhaps today I am a little late; or maybe not only today..... But I don't get this thing in my head....
I the structural part in the separate table materials setting only parts I see it and until here everything ok what I do not see is the length of the pieces that compose it instead I see in the version with re-entry; Is this normal now? I think I have understood yes and therefore I am satisfied; But the fact of putting as you say the equation doesn't make me have the distinct cut of the profiles of the structural part... or did I not understand a piffer?? ? ?

 

[Tantocattivo]

I think it's like, you're a separate indentation (where you see the cutter) and then you solve the "problem" of the axiemi quantities by putting an equation.
or (make a verification), make the separate parts and solve 90% of your problem, then open the structural part, make the separate cut and cups and cones close to the distinct only parts.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

you are messing up between distinct materials and distinct cutting
in the first you have the quantities and properties that you enter into the part. if in one of these properties insert the length and call it back in the distinct then you find it, otherwise we
in the second you always have the compiled properties, but these derive from the sldlfp profile where there may or may not be the length, then you can add others of course; when inserting the cutting distinct display in the columns you want. the difference is that with 2016 you can have the total length of all equal profiles (if you have 10 upn long 300 you can have a column with the length of 3000)
that of the equation is a method for having the design/name code part or only the description that you will still have to fill in. but does not show you the distinct cut

then recapitulating:
distinct materials you can only see the properties of the part. *
separate cut you can see only the properties of this

perhaps with the distinct materials in return you can only see some structural members, but you have to know how to manage all other files, parts and assemblies, so that the first you can see only the parts or only the assemblies and the second you can see or not see the separate cut if it is present
(for example if you have a frame made with upn, plates... and you don't care to see the cut side because this part already has its design how do you manage it with a distinct materials in return? or eliminate the cutting distinction on the part or do not use the separate re-entry materials)

However you are not the one who is late, the concept is not exactly immediate and I in explaining it maybe I twisted a bit also because I stay on the generic when to find the best way you should know well the management you want to get.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I think it's like, you're a separate indentation (where you see the cutter) and then you solve the "problem" of the axiemi quantities by putting an equation.
or (make a verification), make the separate parts and solve 90% of your problem, then open the structural part, make the separate cut and cups and cones close to the distinct only parts.

I'm not talking about how to handle the quantities. on that I have already expressed myself with the speech of the referenced and encoded groups.
I am talking about how to manage a part so as to see it in the distinct materials as encoded design or element not drawing (commercial key)
for me to make a separate indentation only to read on one side composed of only one structural member the description or length of the cut distinction seems absurd.

 

[drake]

what I meant with the concept of intervention manually, which would be nice to have a distinct single with all the quantities of the individual parts and not divided by assemblies. so now without manually intervention you get it only by doing two distinct. . .

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I managed to do the example. Unfortunately, if you don't often do things you rust, then there are sheep, but the concept is that
the last two columns of the distinct that serve only to make the equation work (it is here that I rusted) can be detached (divided) and hidden
the landing is ideally a group to itself because it could be used on multiple structures, so its parts are inhibited because they will be displayed only when I make the table of that groupView attachment assieme 1 livello.zip

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

it would be nice to have a distinct single with all the quantities of the individual parts and not divided by assemblies

if in the separate put option only parts you have the list of all parts without seeing assemblies.
then you can play with the exhibition/hide/promote in the configurations of the assemblies to see one thing or the other

 

[teseo]

I thank you very much but I don't want to miss the table.... .

 

[drake]

I certainly do so. but if by chance you have a part that besides being contained in subaxis is also contained directly in the axieme of first, the distinct begin to be "illegible", at least from my point of view.. .

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I thank you very much but I don't want to miss the table.... .

You're right, as I did a little change to the axieme after zipping, when I remake the pack&go I didn't put the tick on the table

et voilàView attachment assieme 1 livello.zip

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I certainly do so. but if by chance you have a part that besides being contained in subaxis is also contained directly in the axieme of first, the distinct begin to be "illegible", at least from my point of view.. .

mha, if you only see the parts in the separate display, see both the subaxis and the upper ones.
Obviously upstream there must be an organization and a logic in the management of subaxis. encoded, fictitious, commercial, from external studies and who knows what else
If you jump into things randomly it's not the program that works badly.. .

drake, use some quoting that you otherwise lose

 

[drake]

mha, if you only see the parts in the separate display, see both the subaxis and the upper ones.
Obviously upstream there must be an organization and a logic in the management of subaxis. encoded, fictitious, commercial, from external studies and who knows what else
If you jump into things randomly it's not the program that works badly.. .

drake, use some quoting that you otherwise lose

You're right to apologize for quoting. . the work must always be organized, but sometimes you can't do exactly perfectly and you have to adapt. to conclude the speech... It's just x this deficiency that you can't get the total amounts of a part used in a job with different subassies. then when you put the part on the table, or do the hand account or you have to prepare a macro. with jenuary we did it and it works perfectly. I don't understand why Mom doesn't do it.

 

[tanticapelli]

hi to all I intervene in this post because I jammed on the distinct speech materials / distinct cut.

I am working on a project consisting of a parent group which contains in turn subsets which may contain in turn or other subsets, or parts of sheet or plates, or multibody parts.

for reasons of design flexibility the multibody parts are composed of one or more bodies which have been mounted in assemblies.

It is also necessary for you to know that the multibody parts contain machining, such that I may have common elements between the multibody parts with the same processing and length.
but it can also happen that elements of different multibody parts have the same length but not the same processing.

to group the identical bodies and thus facilitate me in identifying any errors of mine, I have the habit of saving the subaxieme containing all the structural elements (which as I said are organized in various subaxiemes) in a single multibody part distinct from the rest of the project that will serve me, through the use of the weld function, to group the identical bodies.

Unfortunately, however, this part has no references to the files from which it comes, consequently it does not affect in any way any updates that I can go to do during the progress of the project. and this for me is a real sin because I could rename the bodies directly from the separate cut and with the function saves bodies and automatic assignment names I could proceed to export the individual bodies and generate the individual tables for production. and saver allows me to generate part files connected to the multibody part that contains the function.

in the light of all the issues you face above I was wondering at this point if there was a system to bind the "multibody part" to the files from which it comes in order to reflect any changes in progress.

Thank you, I hope I've been quite clear

so many hairs

 

[drake]

from what I know with sw as it is not possible. You need a pdm that does, but I never tested it.