assemble together (mobile) in another set? ?

[D4n13l]

Hello everyone
I have a little problem to solve and with creo I can't do it.

I have a father together in which I want to insert another child together with inside components that then I will go to bind in the father together in a certain position (the assist son I can use it in x axiemi)
in the assieme son the components are not bound but all free, at the moment when however I go to bind the assembling in that father I can not put the components where I want and gives me error of constraint.
Do I have to create constraints in my child's welfare and make them flexible? Is there any solution?

thanks to all

 

[DANI-3D]

Bye-bye.
the constraints is always good to put them in the child together, otherwise the project becomes very unstable and difficult to control. on a set can suit you, then insert it into a new set and the old one doesn't work you anymore. for variants there are various methods, one can be flexibility, or parameters and/or quotas managed through relationships, snapshots, for very simple things could go well also family tables ... depends on what you lend better to what you want to get.

 

[D4n13l]

Bye-bye.
the constraints is always good to put them in the child together, otherwise the project becomes very unstable and difficult to control. on a set can suit you, then insert it into a new set and the old one doesn't work you anymore. for variants there are various methods, one can be flexibility, or parameters and/or quotas managed through relationships, snapshots, for very simple things could go well also family tables ... depends on what you lend better to what you want to get.

Thank you so much for your answer, family table for the assemblies I already abolish it, they are good for the commercial components but for the assemblies they are not good, what already said by ptc directly, they realized that it becomes heavy the thing to manage.

At this point I do not see many sincere solutions on how to manage only one code in various assemblies if I want to bind it to different points, the flexible is not said that the prox time I want to bind it to another set that bond can fit me.

are you able to manage the constraints present in the assieme son inside the assieme father so as to activate them or disable them?

Sincerely in inventor the thing was much simpler, it seems impossible for a program like I create not to manage this thing easily.

 

[AndreaTerzi]

hi .. sincerely I would be curious to know who told you that fts in assembly are not used .. however the cases are two: use of the flexibility that allows you to change the odds (and therefore you have to have or csys ad hoc with quotas or use constraints with quotas) or the functionality to activate/disable positionings you do it in the ft and is not at all heavy but quite simple.

 

[320i S]

with a skeleton made ad hoc and put in family table, you can manage different positions, however it may not be a simple job, otherwise with the mechanism constraints, but also can become heavy the situation.
flexibility is another hypothesis, but in my opinion it is worth those situations where with 2-3 flexible measures, combine, if you have more, it can become difficult to put hands on it.

 

[AndreaTerzi]

I have taken for granted an info that is then so discounted is not .. from version 3.0 of I create parametric (or 2.0 I don't remember exactly) you can manage the positioning sets, in the sense that in the ft cell you put the name of the set you want to use. unique column for positioning with specific value name; I think nothing complicated or heavy.

 

[D4n13l]

I have taken for granted an info that is then so discounted is not .. from version 3.0 of I create parametric (or 2.0 I don't remember exactly) you can manage the positioning sets, in the sense that in the ft cell you put the name of the set you want to use. unique column for positioning with specific value name; I think nothing complicated or heavy.

but is it possible that a program like I create can not manage a set not necessarily bound inside another set if not creating family tables? (that I absolutely do not want to do) for something that is very trivial in inventor? Mah.

 

[320i S]

but is it possible that a program like I create can not manage a set not necessarily bound inside another set if not creating family tables? (that I absolutely do not want to do) for something that is very trivial in inventor? Mah.

this because I create distinguishes between mobile constraints (mechanism) and fixed constraints, with a remarkable simplification in regeneration (try on large axioms with 3-4k components with non-binding subaximes with inventor, solidworks or catia and see the difference in terms of regeneration, performance or management in this aspect I create is a really fine) is a different way of approach, not because the program is not able to manage.

 

[D4n13l]

this because I create distinguishes between mobile constraints (mechanism) and fixed constraints, with a remarkable simplification in regeneration (try on large axioms with 3-4k components with non-binding subaximes with inventor, solidworks or catia and see the difference in terms of regeneration, performance or management in this aspect I create is a really fine) is a different way of approach, not because the program is not able to manage.

perfectly agree that it better manages the assemblies but with inventor things are much simpler and faster to manage, in the design phase where time is always little are not things of little account.

 

[320i S]

All relative, for example with solidworks I am noticing that only very small assemblies I should manage them "free", intermediate assemblies with movements conditioned by other components, I should manage them with the configurations (very similar to the family table), otherwise to every bond failure of the whole that commands everything, I must suppress the bound subaxes.
and look at how you put constraints and components, because at first sight the cads on parasolid motor, do not require an order of components, but for complex constraints, the order of creation of constraints and components, counts hereme!

consider also the aspect of the historian, while on the axioms of medium and low level, you have all the positions managed separately, make a change of little account and everything stops there, if you have the positioning constraints on the axioms of higher level, you have to open them one by one to check that everything is in correct position and functions (to speak for personal experience).

 

[Shotfree]

hi, I confirm that I create works differently than inventor, especially for the management of constraints. for your problem a lot depends on what you want me to do with your child (what you did not bind to, to understand).
to make you a simple example, if you want to use a gas spring in multiple assemblies and you want this to take different extensions in the various assemblies, remaining the lower and upper dead point (and therefore the maximum flow from point 0), you will have to bind the elements of the gas spring with constraints of mechanism, in this way when you go to add it to your assemblies the stem and the outer cylinder will be able to swipe at one to the other
different case is if you have a fixed component but that assumes different positions (e.g. a wall fixing), in this case (at least I work in this way) you just realize the assembling with all the components, having care to bind them with quotations specially studied for the directions of displacement, then use flexible elements together (attention not to abuse this method, in some cases I have found some problem of reliability). for this second case you can also assemble components not necessary to all assemblies and pio turn them off and turn them on in the various fathers.