design assistant, vault and work mode

[rizzifrizzi]

inventor I have known him for a few years but always used parallel to a separate management. where I work now have no management.
I realize that without a management that generates codes (univocal) and allows to make distinct basics structured the thing is complicated not little. I was wondering if any of you work with inventor but without a management... and how
Can you survive without? What are the risks or difficulties? How can it help the vault I hear so much about?

I have not yet found my method of work. the same thing you can reach it in many different ways and I have not yet understood which road best.
It won't be the fastest. in the sense I could put more time on the first time but then in the duplications and change simplifies a lot.. to this pro I have tried more than once to use the adaptivity, but then it creates me more troubles than anything else, it seems useful but it often puts me the sticks between the wheels that end up that often and willingly I turn it off for not having around malicious connections for the purposes of stability of the together. as well as creating the parts directly in a set, faster (inheriting the plans of that set) instead of doing again and having own plans that then comes me easier to position the parts and above all I have the plans chosen in functional fundamental parts of the newly created part.
as well as what kind of names give to a part or a set. Every time I create a new set I never know how to call it. I'm trying different ways, but I still don't know what's best, the most suitable for the reality I work in. I'm kind of freaking out about these problems that I'm going to be told to get a little out of design and design, stealing too much space and energy to design itself. I realize that sometimes I spend more time reordering the names (codes) of the various parts so that they follow a logic rather than drawing.
probably all these doubts and uncertainties arise from the fact that they are alone in uff to work on a cad 3d and I have no colleagues to compare or inherit ways of working with.
I wrote to you only to have an opinion a comparison about who maybe uses it for longer and can well advise since there is already past
If you know how to use design assistant you also tell me what else you find it really useful besides copying a set? Same if you use the vault I've never seen. only heard of
what are its potential in earthly words?
thanks to those who want to answer.

 

[TETRASTORE]

If you know how to use design assistant you also tell me what else you find it really useful besides copying a set? Same if you use the vault I've never seen. only heard of
what are its potential in earthly words?

There are dozens of videos and tutorials in Italian and English that explain its potential and use, as well as the tutorials of the mother house.
I suggest you look at some and make a more targeted request.

I realize that sometimes I spend more time reordering the names (codes) of the various parts so that they follow a logic rather than drawing.
probably all these doubts and uncertainties arise from the fact that they are alone in uff to work on a cad 3d and I have no colleagues to compare or inherit ways of working with.

on the fact that you do not know which names assign to the components (it is so?) and how to organize them personally I think it comes from the fact that you do not know well the product and the management of a distinct base.
if you indicate the type of product maybe we can give you useful indications.

I realize that without a management that generates codes (univocal) and allows to make distinct basics structured the thing is complicated not little.

considers that generation of technicians have managed the distinct bases without management and survived, it is important to know them and initially starting from the configuration matrix.

 

[rizzifrizzi]

What do you mean transctor for configuination matrices?
about knowledge of ns. finished products and also the various phases of process is true I am learning them now after more or less 6 months that I work in it, and I must say that some aspects still are not exactly clear to me. you want because one thing you can do so but also so and often it looks more at the effectiveness than the form, you want because such processing very often you can do it before, or even after another, according to how you wake up that morning, or the availability of staff or materials, (unfortunately often I happen to see that you arrange on the basis of the available materials rather than reflect the design) the important that it works and in safety, especially for what it concerns. on machine ones, except for errors, x most times the processing correspond. even if the recovery of a chapel is cmq is at the order of the day. and obviously try not to throw away anything... I am continuing to make axioms "as built" more than to define the various semi-finished.. and the normal process )
other difficulties arise from the fact that in the realization of a machinery, as I think in so many other realities, there are always n° variables and options that you combine together give rise to a tide of pf that often become unique to that customer and unrepeatable. the company has never had a way to codify a pf based on its characteristics, does not even do the commissioned loading (assigning a unique number to each supply) the only unique number that always varies is the serial that is assigned only at the end of work, just before the shipment, and depends on the date of escape.
At first my idea was to name each general set with a code base that defines the generic af10 type family followed by .00.00.00 because it is located at the first liv. and further followed by a desinence - 001 and its subsequent -002.. - 003. for all the variants of that family. the various children who stand under them names af10.01... af10.02... af10.03... and so on, of course the children of these 2-level axes inherit the base of the father for es exploding the group af10.01. I will find in a number of named af10.01.01; af10.01.02; af10.01.03 and so on. It seemed like a good idea to structure as a pointed list of a word file so as to have trace of what is under what, but I realize that the speech is standing hard, and if it has a logic for the first job however jumps to the first duplicate or even just changes even slightly the hierarchy. in addition to the fact that having numbers as a filename complicates the search for the various parts, it is necessary to open the general set if not in the middle of so many files and folders it becomes impossible for me to find it.
Now I am beginning to put (at least the most important or more frequently repeated axes) of the letters that help me to understand immediately what this is like speaking code
type af10.15kw.in.re. to say that it is an af10 from 15kw isonorized and with external cooling.. but this string should be added at least 6-7 other variables for this macrofamily. so also the subgroups I am appointing them more and more with microsigle that reminds me immediately of what it is. then another secondary problem that in the table cariglio is resumed the filename as number dis. then if I go out with the characters it comes out from the field. .
I don't know how you/you want to organize a set?

 

[TETRASTORE]

show me on the web a product with a level of complexity similar to yours, although morphologically different, highlighting what might be the structural parts of your interest. I'll try to explain to you about that.

 

[TETRASTORE]

Now I am beginning to put (at least the most important or more frequently repeated axes) of the letters that help me to understand immediately what this is like speaking code
type af10.15kw.in.re. to say that it is an af10 from 15kw isonorized and with external cooling.. but this string should be added at least 6-7 other variables for this macrofamily. so also the subgroups I am appointing them more and more with microsigle that reminds me immediately of what it is. then another secondary problem that in the table cariglio is resumed the filename as number dis. then if I go out with the characters it comes out from the field. .
I don't know how you/you want to organize a set?

not having more information from you, I try to illustrate my methodology.
I press that to me coding serves to make recognizable thousands of variants of components used in a graphic configurator that generates dimensional drawings and information of a product.
In the attached pdf, I reported as an example an endless screw reducer flanged, but could be any other device (generator, pencil, labeler, compressor, carpentry structure, etc.).
the dimensional design, in this case, must be composed of the following families of components:
- body or case reducer
- entry tree (only the outside)
- Exit tree
- output flange
for each of these components there are numerous variants that I have highlighted for the family "flangia exit" bringing back four (actually they are hundreds).
to easily find the components I have adopted the coding below as an example:542t8fc.001-0 where family variants "flange output" are recognized by a numerical part (542) that I need for management, and a speaking part: (t8fc) that mnemonicamente reminds me that it is a round flange, to 8 centered holes.
follows a progressive number that is associated with the dimensional variants as you can see from the pdf table.
This is enough for me to quickly track every component among the thousands present in the archive (casses, trees, calettators, joints, curtains, reaction arms, engine saddles, etc.), regardless of the product and the manufacturer, allowing also to make comparisons.
Moreover, if I have new products with morphologically similar flanges, I can easily verify whether there is already an equal or similar component to be modified; if I have to create a new variant (in this case, e.g., always of the "family flange output round at 8 centered holes"), I have the 3 final numerical characters (e.g. 001) that allow me to have 999 dimensional variants.
I do. I do not need it, but it could be useful for the production that could use this character to indicate the supply or processing status of the component; for example:
- 1: crude
- 2: semi-finished
- 3 finished
- 4: complete supply
- 5: commercial
- 6: fictitious group (may be the flange complete with fixing screws)
- etc.
In your case, it would be important, whenever you have a new order, to have the opportunity to see if you already have existing designs or to edit without creating new ones from scratch.
for the historian, if you have many un indexed designs, an optimal solution could be to use a special software, like this, which searches for components based on even morphological information.

Now I am beginning to put (at least the most important or more frequently repeated axes) of the letters that help me to understand immediately what this is like speaking code
type af10.15kw.in.re. to say that it is an af10 from 15kw isonorized and with external cooling.. but this string should be added at least 6-7 other variables for this macrofamily. so also the subgroups I am appointing them more and more with microsigle that reminds me immediately of what it is. then another secondary problem that in the table cariglio is resumed the filename as number dis. then if I go out with the characters it comes out from the field. .

what you have used is a talking description that is generally defined by a product configurator, for which there are no string length problems as normally the designation is automatically associated with a smaller numerical or alphanumeric code,
as an example, I carry in the image attached the code of the finished product assembled (electric motor) of a range of engines generated on the basis of the versions and of the countless variants (in the example I only reported some).
in the network you can find, in the catalogs of the producers, the designations used by them for their finished products.
for the names to be assigned to the components, you can refer to the function and/or location, you can also search on the net the manual spare lists or use and maintenance of similar devices to see the names used to identify the various parts or groups.
As for the distinct base I think it is a problem that you will have to expose to the management as it involves many sectors of the company, from the technician to the production, from purchases to the administration, so it must be defined and weighted by components of the various departments with the avall and supervision of the management itself or the property.

I do not know how useful or exhaustive this information may be for your management, but are available for any further clarification. .

 

[rizzifrizzi]

thanks tetrastore for your examples and suggestions.
I need to find a method as soon as possible.
to be the most intuitive pox for me.
the product we make is very similar to thisand they are not many parts. are the variants that really create many combinations.
and the fact that every machine has its own peculiarities that makes it practically unique and unrepeatable.

 

[TETRASTORE]

the image you post refers to a granulator for plastic with side (left) the device that through fan operated by an electric motor transports the granules up to make them fall into the dostore that fills the big bags; is it correct?
in the production of your company is provided only the granulator or the complete system feeder tape, granulator, dispenser?
other question: is already foreseen a maximum classification of granulators (regardless of variants) according to size, power, number of knives, diameter, grids, etc.?
If you may be useful, if you have not seen it, I attach a table of models of a manufacturer in the industry.
in practice for a series called easy there are 8 sizes (models) divided into three groups.
designation identifies the dimensions of the load hopper:e 20 09 09 where the first letter (e) identifies the type, the other three groups of two characters are related to the size 2000x920x930.
you could extend with all other information including variants, in this case will result in a configuration designation (such as this example of a gearbox generated by the configurator: cmc 06 2 h80 11,02 d45 iec 112_b5 ip55 m2 hh v2) that will identify exactly every single variant of the model, but must be associated with a numerical code (e.g. e200909.001) for computerized management.
in the example of the granulator mentioned above, considering that the width of the structure also determines the dimensions of the internal block, could be generated 3 distinct bases on two levels plus options/variants evaluating which are the common parts and also using fictitious groups.
I would rule out to report the car's acronym in the codes of details because many will be shared. their association to the various models you will see them questioning the distinct bases, I would see them well divided into families as I indicated in the previous post.

 

[TETRASTORE]

What do you mean transctor for configuination matrices?

I attach a simple xlsx example.