advanced parameterization

[MassiVonWeizen]

going to change an equation, in this case changing the value 400, the part goes into crisis.
even if I change the library function separately, I close the function and open the part it is corrupt and irrecoverable.
I think, always in the field of my imaginative hypotheses, that the equations become stable once inserted into the part and that if you find a change in the library function comes into conflict

 

[tanticapelli]

I believe that maintaining a function that has similar settings is dangerous.
Since you should use this function on many panels what would happen if you opened a file made months before you needed the 400 division instead of that 500 in the library?

apart from this observation; that value you have to change in the part and not in the library.
The questions I ask you are 2:
Does this change work in the library part?
in the previous part of library made with global variables this change worked?

Thanks for the availability, now I don't have my files underhand, tonight I give an eye

 

[tanticapelli]

going to change an equation, in this case changing the value 400, the part goes into crisis.
even if I change the library function separately, I close the function and open the part it is corrupt and irrecoverable.
I think, always in the field of my imaginative hypotheses, that the equations become stable once inserted into the part and that if you find a change in the library function comes into conflict

Look at massive, I was interested in whether it was smart to have such a kind of automation in a similar context. but already only by the monstrous multiplication of equations in the part where I will go to apply the processing more the problems that you have encountered, I would say it is not worth it.
Sometimes it's more of a global convenience assessment, including computing speed, editing ease, etc. etc.
I would say that in this case it does not have to insist. What do you think?

 

[tanticapelli]

Unfortunately, I have to take charge of the optimization of the software compatibly with my preparation that, as is evident, is never enough, and the productive context whose procedures are not always clear and unequivocal.
from this it comes that I break the maroni to all to try to get to a so.
and you are giving me a great hand in this.

 

[drake]

the discussion is interesting, I did not follow it in all the details and I hope to do it as soon as I can, but I always recommend that it is good to avoid all these automatisms x that you may not control them anymore. It's better to lose one more minute in modeling but use something you have totalke control of what you do.

 

[tanticapelli]

Hi.
I am going crazy or in the sequence of formulas of this post if it happened that "instances" gave an entire value of would be divided the space once too much being int()+1?
Would it not be better to use type round.for.ecc(n;0) of excel rounding to the sicche unit would return a value not intentionally increased in case of full value?
exists round.per.ecc(n;0) in solidworks?

If you do not hesitate this formula instead of int should you use if?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Meanwhile take a look here https://www.javelin-tech.com/blog/2020/10/rounding-solidworks-equation-values/in the image you posted I see nothing strange; because now rebuilding the reasoning behind me is expensive, can you sum it up?

 

[tanticapelli]

Meanwhile take a look here https://www.javelin-tech.com/blog/2020/10/rounding-solidworks-equation-values/in the image you posted I see nothing strange; because now rebuilding the reasoning behind me is expensive, can you sum it up?

You already answered me, thank you.
if they need more details (for the best understanding of the post) tell me, as soon as I can write them.