gestione varianti in family table

[Daniele-san]

Hi.
What is the best (and most functional) way with fts to manage the variants of a more subaxious set (which contain other subaximes and parts)?

I bring an example:
Father together contains:
1 Che contains: subassie 1,1 subassie 1,2 subassie 1,32 che contains: subassie 2.1 subassie 2.2 subassie 2.3together 3 Che contains: subassieme3.1 subassieme3.2 subassieme3.3part 1part 2

i subassiemix.1 --contain parts whose variations are the length of the piece


Hi.

 

[maxopus]

I know one way (but it's my lack).
in the family table you create the different combination variants and insert the columns that recall the variable components. In the cells you will need to enter the names of the files of the variants of the components to be inserted in the respective axes.

 

[Daniele-san]

I know one way (but it's my lack).
in the family table you create the different combination variants and insert the columns that recall the variable components. In the cells you will need to enter the names of the files of the variants of the components to be inserted in the respective axes.

hi maxopus,
you have actually followed what you have suggested, but in some variants of one of the subaxis it does not work perfectly:
or does not charge the subaxiemi or part or in other subaxiemi loads everything to which the no has been assigned.

what can depend on?
And yet I have checked and rechecked them, even made from 0...

Boooh!

 

[calacc]

...what can it depend on?

surely there are assembly references that affect. For example, if you check yes to a part that needs other parts to be assembled to which it is bound in the assembly, even if to these last checks he does not take them on the same otherwise he would not be able to place the element to which you put yes.
to do well according to me you should assemble all the components to a general skeleton that suits everyone, so the assembly references will depend only on him, you could use assemblies using coordinate systems to do before.
If you don't have the skeleton, I think it's not worth keeping your assemblies in the family table, you'd do better with separate assembly files.

 

[DANI-3D]

... or does not charge the subaxiemi or part or other subaxiemi...

the method of managing variants with ft at first sight may seem very comfortable, but I recommend it only for small projects with few details, because it is difficult to manage. I give you an example, if by ft you suppress a particular, you also disappear all the pieces that refer to it, even if some you need and without any notice, every time you turn the fts you have to recheck all the variations manually and make sure that everything works. It's a moment to screw up.
In some cases, if possible, I use flexibility.

 

[Daniele-san]

surely there are assembly references that affect. For example, if you check yes to a part that needs other parts to be assembled to which it is bound in the assembly, even if to these last checks he does not take them on the same otherwise he would not be able to place the element to which you put yes.
to do well according to me you should assemble all the components to a general skeleton that suits everyone, so the assembly references will depend only on him, you could use assemblies using coordinate systems to do before.
If you don't have the skeleton, I think it's not worth keeping your assemblies in the family table, you'd do better with separate assembly files.

Hi.
I think that's the problem.
I didn't work with a skeleton, would you give me some tips?
Would I be able to throw in the ass already done?

 

[Daniele-san]

the method of managing variants with ft at first sight may seem very comfortable, but I recommend it only for small projects with few details, because it is difficult to manage. I give you an example, if by ft you suppress a particular, you also disappear all the pieces that refer to it, even if some you need and without any notice, every time you turn the fts you have to recheck all the variations manually and make sure that everything works. It's a moment to screw up.
In some cases, if possible, I use flexibility.

Hi.
actually making the mess takes less than a moment!
use simplified views? I used them in some projects.
but my question is: would I manage some part (or small assemblies) with ft?

 

[calacc]

I didn't work with a skeleton, would you give me some tips?
Would I be able to throw in the ass already done?

Yes, you can.
the method also depends on how your license is attached. Do you have the ax?

• se si, segui questa procedura qua:
• If not, do as I do:redface:

 

[DANI-3D]

... I would rejoin with them to manage some part (or small assemblies) with ft?

Hi.
if it is small assemblies the system is great, just remember not to take references or mate parts to objects that can then be suppressed, even in the future.
I suggest you create sketches, plans, axes and everything that can serve you in the main set, maybe helping you with a skeleton, of course these objects will never have to be suppressed, then in the development of the project uses these references, you should have no problem.
the important is not to exaggerate with the number of pieces, otherwise the system becomes slow and difficult to manage.

 

[blubossa]

Hi.
I tell you mine based on the experience that I have done in the management of medium/large.

in a complex project you use an approach to design both botton/up and top/down for which you will find yourself with thousands of references to assemblies or parts of which you just can't do without... .

the solutions suggested by dani and calacc are the right ones, I add that if you do not have the license for the big assemblies where you can use the skeleton I would use one or more parts that contain only the driving scketch, on which you can lean.....

I think something like that can be done with the layout, but honestly I never tried it. .

bb

 

[calacc]

• If not, do as I do:redface:

...I add that if you don't have the license for the big assemblies where you can use the skeleton I would use one or more parts that contain only the driving sketches, on which you can lean. . .

here unveiled the beard:frown:
that perhaps is more a secret of flea... but I wanted it to be daniele-san to be interested and to ask for more! :tongue:

 

[blubossa]

here unveiled the beard:frown:
that perhaps is more a secret of flea... but I wanted it to be daniele-san to be interested and to ask for more! :tongue:

Hi.
I just tried to help someone....they are suggestions for if simple but if someone never thought of them it is not really easy to get there. . .
I hope daniele-san learned what I meant....

Hi.
bb

 

[Daniele-san]

Good morning, guys.
Don't fight for me... but you were a woman... :redface:

I had commitments and had to devote my time to a section of extruded aluminum (with which I have little experience).
However I think I have solved the problem by using simplified representations by adding where extremely necessary parts with ft.
looks like it works and you definitely manage better than I thought.
I have always used simplified representations but never with ft.
good start week to all