create variants together

[arzigogolo]

Hello, everyone!

I wondered if in the same way as solid edge, even in pro/e there was the possibility to create different variants of the same set always contained within the same file.

I understand better: in my work it often happens that certain parts contained in an axieme are revised and therefore replaced. Until now, using mainly inventor, the only possibility was to create a copy of the original axieme and in there to replace the parts that were interested by changes. Since sometimes it often happens that some parts are frequently replaced with their respective revisions (sometimes even up to five), it is clear that with this system it increases exponentially also the number of assemblies that contain the various parts replaced, since in practice it is necessary to create an aid for each replacement (both single and multiple).

Having then the need to always preserve the axieme prior to the modification of the piece/i to have a chronicle of the changes, I happen to find myself with a multitude of copies of the same original set, copied so many times how many revisions of the pieces were.

In essence, I would like all these variations to be contained within the same together with the possibility of being able to move from one to another similarly as if it were a "family table" (and being able to change it obviously).

then in the table, of course, in the positioning phase of the main view, the program should give me the possibility to choose from the variants I have previously created in the axieme.

in solid edge I discovered, through this excellent site in the appropriate forum of if, that it is possible to do this through the use of "alternative assemblies".

In addition, I tried to do a research before opening this discussion and found this other discussion http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=22817&highlight=configurazione+assiemithat does to my case for 90%, except for the fact that I do not understand how to use the pro/program function (always this is the best solution).

in fact I tried to use it with the open axieme, but the context menu that appears to me is different from the one suggested in the online help. in practice I miss these voices: " part (part) or assembly (assembly). "

this is the complete text of the guide:
"to access the pro/program environment, select tools (tools) ▶ program (program) from the part menu (part) or assembly (assembly).

and attached to the image, is the menu that appears to me.

I don't understand where I'm wrong.

thank you all and apologize if the post came too long!:redface:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Hello, everyone!

I wondered if in the same way as solid edge, even in pro/e there was the possibility to create different variants of the same set always contained within the same file.

I understand better: in my work it often happens that certain parts contained in an axieme are revised and therefore replaced. Until now, using mainly inventor, the only possibility was to create a copy of the original axieme and in there to replace the parts that were interested by changes. Since sometimes it often happens that some parts are frequently replaced with their respective revisions (sometimes even up to five), it is clear that with this system it increases exponentially also the number of assemblies that contain the various parts replaced, since in practice it is necessary to create an aid for each replacement (both single and multiple).

Having then the need to always preserve the axieme prior to the modification of the piece/i to have a chronicle of the changes, I happen to find myself with a multitude of copies of the same original set, copied so many times how many revisions of the pieces were.

In essence, I would like all these variations to be contained within the same together with the possibility of being able to move from one to another similarly as if it were a "family table" (and being able to change it obviously).

then in the table, of course, in the positioning phase of the main view, the program should give me the possibility to choose from the variants I have previously created in the axieme.

in solid edge I discovered, through this excellent site in the appropriate forum of if, that it is possible to do this through the use of "alternative assemblies".

In addition, I tried to do a research before opening this discussion and found this other discussion http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=22817&highlight=configurazione+assiemithat does to my case for 90%, except for the fact that I do not understand how to use the pro/program function (always this is the best solution).

in fact I tried to use it with the open axieme, but the context menu that appears to me is different from the one suggested in the online help. in practice I miss these voices: " part (part) or assembly (assembly). "

this is the complete text of the guide:
"to access the pro/program environment, select tools (tools) ▶ program (program) from the part menu (part) or assembly (assembly).

and attached to the image, is the menu that appears to me.

I don't understand where I'm wrong.

thank you all and apologize if the post came too long!:redface:

premise:
pro/program for assemblies is only available if you are in possession of the advanced aax module, or both advanced assembly extension.
If you want to give your intelligence together and let you select the components according to rules and questions this is the only way, otherwise you might think of an interchangeal set but also this is an aax function.

If you want to simplify your life, do it with family tables together, but here you are, you must write to him which file you go fishing in the generics of single parts.

greetings

 

[arzigogolo]

premise:
pro/program for assemblies is only available if you are in possession of the advanced aax module, or both advanced assembly extension.
If you want to give your intelligence together and let you select the components according to rules and questions this is the only way, otherwise you might think of an interchangeal set but also this is an aax function.

If you want to simplify your life, do it with family tables together, but here you are, you must write to him which file you go fishing in the generics of single parts.

greetings

hi ozzy and thank you for the great tips! :smile:

Unfortunately it is not long since I use pro/e and consequently I am not very familiar with this program. more than anything, for the most part I have always used inventor and only for a while I have also come to other programs like pro/e and solid edge and I have to say, as I think almost everyone, that the approach to pro/e is still a little ostico, but with the use I hope that these difficulties disappear.

back to the question, the road you suggested to me about the family table seems to me the most viable.
regarding pro/program, how do you see if it is installed? I also think that it is not installed, but I would like to have the certainty.

and if it wasn't installed, what do you refer to what is written in the online help: "to access the pro/program environment, select tools (tools) ▶ program (program) from the part menu (part) or assembly (assembly). "

because if I go to the tool menu there is actually a "program" item, but if I click on it, I see the submenu that I posted in the image. You mean something else that has nothing to do with it?

Finally, if you want and time, could you describe me please, for me bosses is then I arrange to try, the procedure to create the family table for the aid to replace the parts in the different variants?

Thank you for your availability!:finger:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

hi ozzy and thank you for the great tips! :smile:

Unfortunately it is not long since I use pro/e and consequently I am not very familiar with this program. more than anything, for the most part I have always used inventor and only for a while I have also come to other programs like pro/e and solid edge and I have to say, as I think almost everyone, that the approach to pro/e is still a little ostico, but with the use I hope that these difficulties disappear.

back to the question, the road you suggested to me about the family table seems to me the most viable.
regarding pro/program, how do you see if it is installed? I also think that it is not installed, but I would like to have the certainty.

and if it wasn't installed, what do you refer to what is written in the online help: "to access the pro/program environment, select tools (tools) ▶ program (program) from the part menu (part) or assembly (assembly). "

because if I go to the tool menu there is actually a "program" item, but if I click on it, I see the submenu that I posted in the image. You mean something else that has nothing to do with it?

Finally, if you want and time, could you describe me please, for me bosses is then I arrange to try, the procedure to create the family table for the aid to replace the parts in the different variants?

Thank you for your availability!:finger:

to understand if you have the form is simple:
if you click on the project and in the message bar you will find a writing that asks you to go to the ptc site, it means that you do not have the form.
the menu comes out simply because pro/program for the parts is integrated in the basic module, while for the assemblies it leans on this module.

 

[arzigogolo]

to understand if you have the form is simple:
if you click on the project and in the message bar you will find a writing that asks you to go to the ptc site, it means that you do not have the form.
the menu comes out simply because pro/program for the parts is integrated in the basic module, while for the assemblies it leans on this module.

hello ozzy and thank you.

I went to "published project" as you say and a text document appeared to me that contains a lot of information about the drawing. the content is this:

version 5.0
rev. 92
list for together_parabola

input
end input

relations
end relations


add feature (initial number 1)
id feature internal 1


Reference plan

n. name element info
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 name feature defined
2 defined constraints
2.1 defined
2.1.1 type construction x
3 reverses redefined
4 defined
4.1 type default


I only put the first lines to shorten because the list is longer, so I think it should be installed, or not?
But if it is installed, should no other voices appear in the submenu?
I can't understand.

What do you say?

Thank you.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

means that you have the license, pro/program for assemblies as I said it is integrated is not an additional installation but simply it is activated by means of the license.
the voices in the sub menu do not appear because you did not generate any variant until now.

Now to come to your problem I would like to understand how many components your master set is composed and how many variations you have to manage, otherwise I can't tell you which procedure I think is best to use:

I also have a few questions to ask you:

1-When you talk about revised parts you talk about components to manufacture?
2-in your business together? if you manage them?
3-Do you have a pdm, use search path?
4-seaters report the automatic revision number? If you like?

I have other questions to ask you, but I don't want to kill you.

 

[arzigogolo]

means that you have the license, pro/program for assemblies as I said it is integrated is not an additional installation but simply it is activated by means of the license.
the voices in the sub menu do not appear because you did not generate any variant until now.

Now to come to your problem I would like to understand how many components your master set is composed and how many variations you have to manage, otherwise I can't tell you which procedure I think is best to use:

I also have a few questions to ask you:

1-When you talk about revised parts you talk about components to manufacture?
2-in your business together? if you manage them?
3-Do you have a pdm, use search path?
4-seaters report the automatic revision number? If you like?

I have other questions to ask you, but I don't want to kill you.

Anf.. How human you are!:biggrin:

Here's the story: The master axieme consists of 4 fairly full-bodied subaxes that divide the equipment into as many identifying zones, such as "basation", "vertical alignment", "horizontal alignment", "transverse alignment" (in practice it is a satellite antenna parable of those seen on the small boats with a white outer shell shaped like bell).
altogether will be about fifty drawing components without counting the parts to trade.

These sub-axioms are mainly composed of bound parts and other sub-axioms depending on the need.

At first I began to model it all in a single set, but I came up with such a sidereal cheek that after that bad experience I realized that it was better to subdivide the whole thing in subassiem.

to come to your four questions:

1)I talk about components to be manufactured with constructive design, which as soon as they undergo a change, are raised of revision index, then saved and copied with the new name and finally replaced in their membership group also copied and saved with the new name.
as I said at the beginning, I must remain not only the original piece (and for that there is no problem), but also the axieme/subassieme before the modification that contains it.

and, as you can well imagine, if the revisions of one or more parts are more than 3, maybe even 4 or 5, it is easy to understand that, besides the part, I have to copy every time also the axieme that contains it for so many times how many revisions are. (e.g. if the revisions of a piece were 5, even the axieme that contains it must be copied and saved by name 5 times).

It is obvious that with this system, I get so many of those assemblies and many of those puts on the table that when I have to look for a certain piece, I don't regret it anymore!

Figured when I have to replace a table with the new piece (do this to reuse the previous design the change and do not have to stand there to recreate the table from scratch) that casino vien me out!

2)Yes, in the assembly there are components from trade, mainly screws and bearings, but the types are not many. as I manage them. Well with inventor there is the integrated content center so there is no problem, for pro/e there are sites that have standard parts made specifically for him, or through family tables, but I would like to take advantage of those already ready in the various sites.

3) no, we don't have pdm.

4)Yes, the tables report the number of revision automatically. with inventor just create a custom property in the model and recall it in the tableware and automatically updates. with pro/e I believe that the speech is basically similar and that you should create a custom parameter with the design code and then tie it to the cartilage in the table.

I am trying to get ahead of now with pro/e so I know more or less how to move when I have to use it fully.

Unfortunately I came the post too long again!:frown:

Thank you.

 

[blubossa]

hi arzigogolo, but how do you automatically release the number of the revision in the tableware?

I've been trying for a long time and I just can't figure out how to do it....

bb

 

[maxopus]

hi arzigogolo, but how do you automatically release the number of the revision in the tableware?

I've been trying for a long time and I just can't figure out how to do it....

bb

There are several ways and in macanza of the pdm for example I do so.
if I have to review a component (with relative table) and want to keep the historian of the changes I create a new component with the save copy.
If for example the old one was called 123456r0, the new one will be called 123456r1.
the copy save automatically creates the new table (as long as the part and table have the same name).

at this point it is up to you to decide whether to split the code string (123456 for the code and r1 for the revision) with the use of a simple "exract" relationship or to hold all the merged code (including revision).

I usually prefer not to divide the code from the revision because the data is more immediate and causes less to the error.

there are customers, however, who prefer to keep things distinct for ties with the management system (to avoid having to recode the distinct ones).

 

[arzigogolo]

hi arzigogolo, but how do you automatically release the number of the revision in the tableware?

I've been trying for a long time and I just can't figure out how to do it....

bb

hi blubossa, in fact regarding the number of revision that updates automatically, I referred to inventor, is there that I did.
in pro/e I think we proceed in the same way, that is to create a "start part" model with the parameter of the code-draft included of revision inserted inside it and, subsequently, you call it in the cartilage with the "&" followed by the name of the parameter.
of course, first it is better to hear the experts to confirm if you actually do so.

with regard to the string of the revision that is better than one with the code, is just what maxopus says.
in fact it is done much earlier so and that is by integrating the revision index in the design code, rather than split it into two complicating things.

I also do so in the company. the format I use is this: xxxxx-00 that is a single string and where 00 is the revision.

Hi.:wink:

 

[arzigogolo]

At this point, I think the solution to the problem is to use pro/program to create different variants of the same together with different components.

in this regard, do you know if there is a fairly clear guide, perhaps with examples, to understand well how pro/program works?

because to edit the text file you need to know how to do since you can not visually guess.

Finally, if I can afford a small personal consideration: I realize that pro/e was the first to introduce parametric modeling in 1985 and that it gave a great impetus to solid modeling by introducing the concept based on "feature" and that if it hadn't been for him there wouldn't even be other three-dimensional modelers. But I can't help but wonder why "devil" has to make everything so difficult and complicated even when it comes to routine operations.

then I do not discuss the undoubted advantages of the most evolved parametric kernel, of the "lightness" of the assemblies, of stability, etc., all very important things that however are put in shadow by the tortuousness and the difficulty of learning.

Wouldn't you think it would be beneficial to him if some operations were simplified to the full advantage of clarity and speed of learning?

It seems to me a little as if, in the meantime, the other programs evolved, the pro/e designers reacted on the laurels benefiting from the fact that pro/e was the first and that the others would never reach it.

But in the meantime, the other software houses were not with their hands. I have gone ahead and progressed more and in my opinion, in some cases, even to overcome.

just refer to the introduction I made at the beginning of this discussion, about the same possibility offered by solid edge with the "alternative assemblies". in fact it is mainly thanks to the help of the users of this forum that I managed to understand very quickly and clearly, the procedure to solve the same problem that I put in this discussion.

I mean, if it wasn't so complicated for solid edge, why should it be so much for pro/e? Couldn't make it a little easier, without penalizing it too much?

I believe that it would benefit mainly users and, in reflexion, even the creators of pro/e.

I apologize if I was boring, it was just my personal outburst.:biggrin:

 

[maxopus]

we say that ptc has the defect of demanding that official courses be made.
advanced features do not find them around the web or on the internal tutorials.
The software houses (all) try to land the lunar even with these systems ... you want to use the basic functions? .... you can manage it alone.... Do you want to know how well the pro/program or the advanced assembly works? ... you have to pass through our official course and drop the money.

the alternative is to pass by someone who knows how to teach you the arguments but, you must be sure that it is a serious thing, otherwise there is nothing going on.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

alt alt alt...
doing the official dealer and providing certified or custom courses I feel compelled to specify some things that perhaps escape. . .

I can sometimes understand the " frustration" of some users, in finding certain information, but I do not agree at all when it is said that it is a "exhibit" fault of official courses by ptc or any other var present on the market.

starting from the assumption that there are free online tutorials for the basic part of pro/e and you have the help online, if a company decides not to take courses, it can surely get away alone, maybe with a little more effort but with a lot of good will you definitely succeed, but you have a limit not trivial in the use of the instrument and why it is very simple to explain:

I for example "I demand" that my customers work and exploit the tool to 100%, a tutorial, a manual reading it as self-taught as it can be done well will never give you the same operation and understanding of a course made by an instructor with years of experience on the tool, will never tell you why a certain thing is done in one way compared to another, you always have many roads but what is the right one? the fastest, the most stable, the most performing for your case? the manual, the tutorial, the help, teaches you the command the method... aimé is something extremely different, so I also demand that the user understand to the bottom of the various facets of the tool, will be to him then operate in the best way to deal with that problem, but I do not teach him the command.. I teach him his intelligence, once I understand the mechanism any problem can be faced lightly.

So when you demand these courses, the user must not think that pays a manual, it is a completely wrong message, pays the advice of this person, we want to give you the opportunity to do things in 1/4 of the time, use a space tool and we want to justify the return of investment,
to get to this however it is necessary to do courses with competent people, otherwise everything becomes more complicated and you will never have the feeling of having in hand the instrument, this is much more marked in the advanced modules like a pro/program or others.
with pro/program you can make product configurators, the syntax you will learn it also in the help but then you have to cuff us and make practical examples, otherwise you can try it yourself, you load 100 kg on your shoulder and start walking, you can definitely do it but how much you put? :smile:

greetings

 

[maxopus]

Hi, Pat... My was a half-bar.
I called "defect" a clear business policy.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Hi, Pat... My was a half-bar.
I called "defect" a clear business policy.

Hello, Max

I know that it was a joke, rightly you also pointed out some points, I only emphasized them more from my point of view, it was not an attack against you that is clear. :finger:

 

[arzigogolo]

Bye, guys. thanks to both, ozzy and maxopus, I appreciated sincerity and clarity and especially a very important fact if you want to be able to learn well in pro/e, that is to attend a course.

In fact I started with self-taught inventor (for the truth the first was mechanical desktop 4.0) and fury to slew us and work on it, I think I have acquired a good experience of this program.

Before that, I used only autocads that I hated deeply for the lack of any relationship between entities and any automatism and when I had the opportunity to move to a three-dimensional program, I did not see the time. I managed very well with inventor and now I want to try with solid edge and pro/e.

Obviously if I find it very intuitive and easy enough to learn and I have to say that I really like it, pro/e instead, as you will understand, I feel a little heavier and less "attractive", but I would like to be able to learn it the same. from mine, I must say I do it passionately because I like 3d programs.

I would like to ask you a courtesy: I decided to attend a pro/e learning course in my city, I live in Milan, but both on the ptc site and on google I couldn't find anything.
I searched on the ptc site some phone number to personally ask someone if they knew where to address me, but I didn't see anything, even to pay him gold!:Mother:

Maybe I looked bad, but I didn't find anything the same.

Would you please tell me a few ptc phone numbers I can call to ask if they organize courses in my city?

another thing: what kind of course would it be best to attend? basic or intermediate? I ask because having already a good experience of 3d programs especially inventor, but lately also solid edge and pro/e itself, the basics I think I know them.

by self-taught, in pro/e I arrived at this point: At the level of parts I can shape them "lowly" well. I understood the "relations" meant how to bind together the quota values both in the model and in the axieme and the use of parameters. then even if with difficulty, I can move a little bit even in the assemblies.

Of course it's not much, but maybe it's better to start a basic course.

You tell me.

Thank you for your help!:finger:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Bye, guys. thanks to both, ozzy and maxopus, I appreciated sincerity and clarity and especially a very important fact if you want to be able to learn well in pro/e, that is to attend a course.

In fact I started with self-taught inventor (for the truth the first was mechanical desktop 4.0) and fury to slew us and work on it, I think I have acquired a good experience of this program.

Before that, I used only autocads that I hated deeply for the lack of any relationship between entities and any automatism and when I had the opportunity to move to a three-dimensional program, I did not see the time. I managed very well with inventor and now I want to try with solid edge and pro/e.

Obviously if I find it very intuitive and easy enough to learn and I have to say that I really like it, pro/e instead, as you will understand, I feel a little heavier and less "attractive", but I would like to be able to learn it the same. from mine, I must say I do it passionately because I like 3d programs.

I would like to ask you a courtesy: I decided to attend a pro/e learning course in my city, I live in Milan, but both on the ptc site and on google I couldn't find anything.
I searched on the ptc site some phone number to personally ask someone if they knew where to address me, but I didn't see anything, even to pay him gold!:Mother:

Maybe I looked bad, but I didn't find anything the same.

Would you please tell me a few ptc phone numbers I can call to ask if they organize courses in my city?

another thing: what kind of course would it be best to attend? basic or intermediate? I ask because having already a good experience of 3d programs especially inventor, but lately also solid edge and pro/e itself, the basics I think I know them.

by self-taught, in pro/e I arrived at this point: At the level of parts I can shape them "lowly" well. I understood the "relations" meant how to bind together the quota values both in the model and in the axieme and the use of parameters. then even if with difficulty, I can move a little bit even in the assemblies.

Of course it's not much, but maybe it's better to start a basic course.

You tell me.

Thank you for your help!:finger:

I'll send you a mp where to ask for references okay?
greetings