drawing together problem configurations

[tanticapelli]

Hello everyone

I make you a pack and go of the work I'm doing where I found that the design does not correctly update the size of the camera to vary the configuration.

However, the axieme seems to fugitive everything correctly.

What am I wrong?

I thank you and I offer my best

Good luck!

so many hairs

 

[tanticapelli]

Sorry I realized that the aluminum profiles of the façade may not appear on your pcs as they refer to the section of the welding profiles that are not standard.
Now I will do some evidence however it is right to believe that the difficulties of updating and drawing happen equally.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

quiet cher the profiles are still seen.
I'm home and I can't open your version, can you try to explain what's going on?

 

[tanticapelli]

quiet cher the profiles are still seen.
I'm home and I can't open your version, can you try to explain what's going on?

hi massive, I now updated the info of my profile as I am now working with sldwrks 2019 sp 3.0.
I'm sorry you can't open the project to explain it in words is pretty tiring. . .
If you want, we connect with teamviewer so I'll show you. . .

Thank you.

 

[tanticapelli]

If you happen to feel like connecting with me I would also ask you a question for a parameterization that to what I heard you say you can also do without the help of a macro (and menomal since I couldn't write it).

if we find the answer will be my care to put the detailed description on this post, of course.

Thank you.

so many hairs

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I'm done tonight, see tomorrow night.

a question for a parameterization that to what I heard say you can also do without the help of a macro

If I tell you, I'll get an idea.

 

[tanticapelli]

I'm done tonight, see tomorrow night.

If I tell you, I'll get an idea.

I practically have a grid type of continuous facade ("type face_spandrel" multibody part) parametrized base x height where the two odds respond to different configurations of part.

I entered the same part in a set (which will be the assieme father "modulo par vetro fisso") which has the same configurations as the above part and obviously the change of the set configuration appears the corresponding part configuration.

after which I created a set "fixed camera" (first configuration) consisting of:
- a subaxieme of a laminated glass consisting of two glass plates (of which a bevel) + 2 pvb films (where the first glass plate contains two basic and height quotas which are two trivial formulas related to the basic values and height of "type_spandrel façade" which vary from the varying configurations);
- a multibody part which represents the canal of the camera;
- a part representing the outer monolithic glass;
- a subaxieme that contains specific accessories that serve for fixing;
Note that all items listed on the list at times above contain only the default configuration.

all this casino to get a drawing file where I put a front view of the assieme father ("fixed glass module") which I wanted to contain different sheets each for each set configuration.
Unfortunately, however, it happens that in the design to vary the configurations only changes the size of the facade (faced type spandrel) and the glass (which I remember is free of configurations but has the odds hooked with equation + external reference) does not follow the change of configurations but remains "freed" on the configuration in which the axieme of origin was saved before being closed last time.
If I insert multiple views or multiple sheets of the same view in different configurations the glass always remains frozen on the configuration where the axieme, as I said before, was saved last time.
Note that both the axieme and the only configured part have life and reconstruction marks on all configurations.
for the glass parts instead it was not possible to do this because they only have the default configuration.
the irritating thing is that in the assieme father (in the adsm file) everything seems to work properly to vary every configuration. . .

I also cuffed into general software options but I couldn't solve the problem.

I hope I explained. . .

Sigh, sob...

so many hairs

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I looked at the file is the problem lies in updating the second level subaxieme (subasiemi subasiemi to understand).
It is a problem already detected in the past on the forum, but now I do not remember if a solution had been found.
Now I don't know how to help you if I don't dissolve the first subaxieme

 

[tanticapelli]

I looked at the file is the problem lies in updating the second level subaxieme (subasiemi subasiemi to understand).
It is a problem already detected in the past on the forum, but now I do not remember if a solution had been found.
Now I don't know how to help you if I don't dissolve the first subaxieme

Wow, that's a big deal.

 

[tanticapelli]

I have another parent set that gives me the same problem that contains a first level subaxieme that contains parameterized parts and does not update in the drawing.. .
but then this means that I can only have top-level parts and no sub-axioms and therefore the speech of lightening the hardware through the use of the sub-axis goes to be blessed. . .

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Now I can't tell you more, it would be to look for the previous discussions, but I can't.

 

[tanticapelli]

Now I can't tell you more, it would be to look for the previous discussions, but I can't.

You're quiet massive now hammering a few people that this is quite scandalous. . .

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

you could try setting the assemblies as flexible. is not the correct solution, but it could be a palliative.
if you test as flexible as both the first level and the second

 

[tanticapelli]

you could try setting the assemblies as flexible. is not the correct solution, but it could be a palliative.
if you test as flexible as both the first level and the second

Forgives ignorance, I have made all the assemblies present in the assieme father flexible, but I have carried out these operations within the 3d sldasm model.
in the design model it seems to be in no way affected by the flexibility of the subaxis.

What am I wrong?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

nothing, it means that even so does not work.
the most serious problem is that by inserting two views with different configuration you can update one, in fact inserted the view you go to the model (right button open part) the update message appears. now creating a second view with another configuration and making the same pass the view is updated, but regress the previous one.

 

[tanticapelli]

nothing, it means that even so does not work.
the most serious problem is that by inserting two views with different configuration you can update one, in fact inserted the view you go to the model (right button open part) the update message appears. now creating a second view with another configuration and making the same pass the view is updated, but regress the previous one.

In fact.. .
I repeat: beautiful bitch.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

the discussion in the forum do not find it, but I found this page; my English does ca@are quindo perhaps speaks of anything else

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

try to move the equation that manages the size of the glass to the level of the main axieme, and manage it as blobal variables so that instead of making convrerti entities constraints the size of the various glasses to these variables. I have not been able to do a test, but if the problem lies in updating references within subassiemi this method, i.e. having references only to the first level, should solve

 

[tanticapelli]

try to move the equation that manages the size of the glass to the level of the main axieme, and manage it as blobal variables so that instead of making convrerti entities constraints the size of the various glasses to these variables. I have not been able to do a test, but if the problem lies in updating references within subassiemi this method, i.e. having references only to the first level, should solve

You're so far ahead.
Now I try.
I haven't finished reading the article you linked to me yet, but I can tell you that in line with mass it talks about solidworks... :unsures:

 

[tanticapelli]

try to move the equation that manages the size of the glass to the level of the main axieme, and manage it as blobal variables so that instead of making convrerti entities constraints the size of the various glasses to these variables. I have not been able to do a test, but if the problem lies in updating references within subassiemi this method, i.e. having references only to the first level, should solve

I'm trying but I don't know how to do it in terms of syntax. .