how to insert a variant of subassieme into a set.

[fabry56]

Hello, everyone.
Today my problem is the following: I have a set that is composed of so many parts and sub-assiem. I also have to insert a small set consisting of three pieces but one of these pieces will have to be in working position (placed of a few mm.) compared to the original axieme file. It's obvious that if they put it in the original file, he looks right, but I get the table and then if I had to show it in another original version, it's not done. I think we need simple representations. I unfortunately used them only to make the developments of the plates in the table. How could I do that? I have to create a representation. simplified in the axiemino that I have to assemble?
Thank you.

 

[DANI-3D]

Bye.
In some cases, this solution is adopted: I use for mating an ad hoc plan whose position I manage it from family table, then insert in the main group the generic or its variants.

 

[tartufon80]

Bye!

I use flexibility in these cases. try looking for something on the online guide!

 

[fabry56]

I did it with rapprs. simplified. But I have to do another together with the piece in the other position and assimilate it. I'll show it in the draw but I'll turn it off. It works, but the bom sees you or one or another depending on what you hold active and logically the code cannot be the same. I don't like it. Maybe with flexibility but it's not a spring!
Hi.
Thank you.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I did it with rapprs. simplified. But I have to do another together with the piece in the other position and assimilate it. I'll show it in the draw but I'll turn it off. It works, but the bom sees you or one or another depending on what you hold active and logically the code cannot be the same. I don't like it. Maybe with flexibility but it's not a spring!
Hi.
Thank you.

I prefer for this kind of work to take the way of snaphots, but in the assemblies you have to work with the cinematic connections and not with the constraints, just because I do not want to assemble the component 2 or more times.
or as it correctly wrote tartufon with flexibility.
flexibility is not only meant for a spring, it can be applied in any component that becomes "variable".
greetings

 

[DANI-3D]

... maybe with flexibility but it's not a spring!

definitely is a good system, flexibility is not only needed to manage springs. also remembers the fts.

 

[AndreaTerzi]

the best solution is the flexibility with which you can not only vary size but also suppress feature or other. and the code is always the same so you have no problem then in the drawing bom.

 

[tartufon80]

.... flexibility is not only to be understood for a spring, it can be applied in any component that becomes "variable".
greetings

definitely is a good system, flexibility is not only needed to manage springs.... .

the best solution is the flexibility with which you can not only vary size but also suppress feature or other. and the code is always the same so you have no problem then in the drawing bom.

I also use it to "move" commercial components, such as speedyblocks. I amount them as assimilate, and with the appropriate changes (then I make them the first time and then save them on the server) I can make them move as in reality, managing for example a flexible parameter. it is also very convenient to see any encumbrance in different positions.

and as others have said, the fields of application are many.

...... also recurring fts.

ovviamente! :finger:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

without ft, without simplified representations, without flexibility... :tongue:

 

[tartufon80]

There is no trick, there is no deception!! :biggrin:

Well, another feature of creo to discover: I've never tried snapshots, even less with cinematisms....but this is the good time!! :finger:

 

[DANI-3D]

I sponsor the fts, because a while ago I got some dx pieces and left simply turning 180° the plan on which I had mounted everything. a real show.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I sponsor the fts, because a while ago I got some dx pieces and left simply turning 180° the plan on which I had mounted everything. a real show.

ft is right to sponsor them, I am a lover too but in a case like this I think it is not good because "force" the user to create a new istance = a new code together that in reality does not exist being the same and itself is his bom, becomes problematic to manage outside the technical office, you do not have a pdm and do not connect to an erp...

 

[fabry56]

Today I tried to work in the small together with the simplified representations and until it's all right to itself. I have my two variants open and closed and everything works perfectly. when I insert this small assembly into the main axieme, he no longer sees the simplified representations created inside and makes me see at the same time the two assemblies that stand out because it does not keep the closed or open that I impose on him. Is there any way to get him to digest this system?
In other words, the problem is to be able to see in the general assemblies the two positions but with one together only because the bom should not read codes of more axiemic than then are almost identical. with flexibility, it seems impossible to move components. Can you vary lengths of a body but the bodies do not move them or do you? thank you people!!

 

[DANI-3D]

ft is right to sponsor them, I am a lover too but in a case like this I think it is not good because "force" the user to create a new istance = a new code together that in reality does not exist being the same and itself is his bom, becomes problematic to manage outside the technical office, you do not have a pdm and do not connect to an erp...

It's true, you're right, actually, my case is different, I in my project, and in the respective distinct I need both the dx group and the corresponding sx specular group.

 

[BFausto]

If I can, and late, you can also use the explosive-non-exploding state.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Today I tried to work in the small together with the simplified representations and until it's all right to itself. I have my two variants open and closed and everything works perfectly. when I insert this small assembly into the main axieme, he no longer sees the simplified representations created inside and makes me see at the same time the two assemblies that stand out because it does not keep the closed or open that I impose on him. Is there any way to get him to digest this system?

If you work with simplified representations you must also create the two simplified closed-open representations at a higher level, because in the master representation will always show you everything and you must tell him which representation and which together to take, otherwise you will see them only in your lower axiemino that is why I disagree this method.

that is the problem is to be able to show in the general assemblies the two positions but with one together only because the bom should not read codes of more axioms that are then almost identical

That's what I explained a few lines above.. .

with flexibility, it seems impossible to move components. Can you vary lengths of a body but the bodies do not move them or do you?

If you want to move components using flexibility you need to create an ad hoc parameter in the axieme that drives you the opening quota of the bond, then in the parameter tab of flexibility you can recall and vary the value.

 

[tartufon80]

....if you want to move components using flexibility you need to create an ad hoc parameter in the axieme that drives you the opening share of the bond, then in the parameter tab of flexibility you can recall and vary the value.

exactly what I do in some cases, in others instead I manage in flexibility directly the share of the axieme that makes me flexible.

 

[tartufon80]

I prefer for this kind of work to take the way of snaphots, but in the assemblies you have to work with the cinematic connections and not with the constraints, just because I do not want to assemble the component 2 or more times.

Hello, Ozzy!

I quickly tried to see something: looks really strong as a system!
Of course, to be deepened.
question: Are there against you to work with cinematic connections instead of constraints?
My is an ignorant perplexity on the subject. said vulgarly: "It's bothering to see what cursed square next to the tree model name" .

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Hello, Ozzy!

I quickly tried to see something: looks really strong as a system!
Of course, to be deepened.
question: Are there against you to work with cinematic connections instead of constraints?
My is an ignorant perplexity on the subject. said vulgarly: "It's bothering to see what cursed square next to the tree model name" .

Hello tartufon,
I know that for many people it is more a psychological matter than anything, the fact that there is the square near the name is to indicate only that the component in question has degrees of freedom not that it is not properly bound and the connections serve precisely for this purpose, to "verify" the cinematic behavior of the component in relation to others.
said in plain words, you only have advantages of assembling components and assemblies as they actually move, also because then you enable a series of analysis that vice versa you could not do with constraints, since they always need a regeneration of a quota or parameter. . .
ps: I use both, where I need to use constraints and/or connections, but in cases like these all life connections!

 

[tartufon80]

Okay... then I'll put myself to work and let you know! Thank you! ;-)