name distinct cut elements

[tanticapelli]

really is the opposite. insert the part into one part and Then block external references

ah behold, but if the original part in turn is rich in external references because of the library functions (and because of this it is very slow) do not have to block anything?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

ah behold, but if the original part in turn is rich in external references because of the library functions (and because of this it is very slow) do not have to block anything?

First of all, why are library functions not released from library files?
then, blocking references in the part inserted in the part blocks everything, even all other functions that have if,mp their weight; Moreover the block you do it with a passage only while, if not mistaken, in the original part you have to do it for each function.

Are you sure it is the reference to the library file to hang the part? Have you made a comparison (read function statistics) between relational function and unrelated function?

This remains that it is to verify that blocking references functions at performance level.

 

[tanticapelli]

First of all, why are library functions not released from library files?

because as I have just created the library functions, if I had to make a change within them the modification would favor all the functions that have kept the external reference.

This remains that it is to verify that blocking references functions at performance level.

In fact in this case I did not make a specific experiment, I will try to block and then to unlock (to see if you hang them without making pastries) after backup. certainly in the current state the slowness is there and is already in the model.
I am sure, however, that the library functions are deceptive to external references but this is an irreversible process.
when I can, because now I don't have the job under my hand, I want to try to get into the original part and right-click the parent part indicated on the top of the features tree enter the external references and block them, and if this is possible it should still be a reversible process.
as you say rightly I should do a performance analysis to understand if there is also an excessive weight due to the number of triangles, possibly I could make small changes to the welding profile library to eliminate some details that tend to weigh the extrusions generated by them. but for now I do not have the certainty of this because as I repeat I do not have the work under hand therefore I cannot do a performance analysis.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Do you have a way to attach a part that you feel heavy so tomorrow I do a couple of tests myself?

 

[tanticapelli]

Do you have a way to attach a part that you feel heavy so tomorrow I do a couple of tests myself?

I will but not in these days because I have no material underhand. Also in a similar case who knows if I should do a packing and go to include also the bookshelf functions linked with external reference?

 

[tanticapelli]

"Who knows if I should" should be the if not hypothetical and therefore grammatically correct. Hopefully.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Who knows if I should do a packing and go to also include library functions related with external reference?

would be ideal

 

[tanticapelli]

returning to the speech library functions, if I didn't miss something I don't seem to be able to choose which bodies to apply the function if the function itself is applied in a multibody context.
by always doing the example of the facade continues, if I have built a library function only on a file that represents a traverse, when I go to the multibody part where there are both the mounts and the beams to apply that function, I can not apply it on more distanced beams between them without engaging even the mounts, and it does not seem to me to be an option as instead in a normal extruded cut in which to choose which bodies to apply the function. if it is as I say it is quite uncomfortable because it means having to repeat or insert many times the library function when it was an extruded passing cut you will have with only one function involved many pieces.
Is there any mischief that can help me bypass the obstacle without filling the features tree to the inverosimile?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I imagine you suspect that the library function remains connected to the original part.
In fact in this way you can not change the internal function by specifying which bodies to include and which not.
by making a library function on a multibody does not seem to give the possibility, when entering the part, to select the bodies on which to execute it; but I need to check better.

while a buffer solution is to isolate the components on which to operate; alternatively before the library function, the function deletes bodies (with option maintains).

 

[tanticapelli]

yes massive, actually disconnecting the processing from the library function I can enter the editing of the (in this case) extruded cut and choose which bodies to involve.

even if the external reference is not written the application of the processing is still quite fast.

I also send the original library function just for completeness.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

even if the external reference is not written the application of the processing is still quite fast.

I don't understand what you mean.
However unfortunately in this way you lose the connection you wanted to maintain.
I forgot to write it; I have done various tests and tried on the net, but I have found nothing that allows to discern which bodies involved in the library function. I even noticed that creating the function in multibody mode, when it fits into a part it is not possible to connect it to the original.
an alternative, without having to disconnect the function or have to take it back and that, already stated, to isolate or maintain the bodies on which to work.can be tedious, but if you organize the library functions for groups of bodies, where possible, it becomes relatively easy as procedure

 

[tanticapelli]

an alternative, without having to disconnect the function or have to take it back and that, already stated, to isolate or maintain the bodies on which to work.

Oh, wow, I didn't read your previous post carefully. I tried, it works! the important thing is that you should go back into the editing of the function you care to isolate the affected bodies again

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

you should enter in the editing of the function you care to isolate the affected bodies again

if there is this possibility in such case you can use the function deletes bodies. I've been using it a lot lately because it allows me to work on a certain number of bodies without having the problem of visual hindrance and updates of unwanted elements.
To give you an example I worked last week on a frame, imported, of a hundred bodies, I divided them by criterion (mountains, crosses, base plates...) and turning on and off the various functions erasing body I worked in looseness.

with this function you can delete or maintain the selected bodies.
as it works on the bodies and not on functions if you use your library function after deleting bodies, if you suspend/delete bodies the subsequent functions do not resent them.
Do you try and see the nirvana approach?

 

[tanticapelli]

wow interesting, for me it is (another) new thing. will I try (this night? )
not having personally weighed this command's mobility, I wonder if, during the rescue phase, I might be useful.
I try to explain myself better.
We consider, as already written somewhere in this post, I find myself in the side file that includes all the continuous facades of the yard and I of this file wanted to save not every single body but one for each generated folder of the cut distinction (as it is easy to imagine so many bodies of a same folder means for the workshop n repetitions of the same piece). but at the same time I wanted to name the various pieces with prefix for the transverses and m for the climbers, followed by a progressive number without strange jumps.
He had, on the basis of the knowledge collected so far does not seem very simple to name differently the climbers and the beams, much worse to give a progressive number.
maybe the thing gets further complicated when active the function saves bodies, since that I know you have to manually select a body for each folder of the separate cut and also appoint it manually if you have not already done it before you activate the function itself. if you have already done so before there is the small advantage that with automatic assignment names you recognize the bodies interested in export since they report the changed names manually, which will be one for each folder.
Therefore my application as a solidworks deacon and if there is a quick method to export with the criterion described above, since as you can imagine in everyday work it is required not to miss but also to do things quickly. rather faster.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

not having personally weighed this command's mobility, I wonder if, during the rescue phase, I might be useful.

In a way, yes. with this function go to eliminate bodies, so it also modifies the separate cut. if you have compiled the description of the folders and propagated this to the folder name six, almost, in an iron barrel because turning on and off the function deletes the bodies of the separate cutting folders will keep their name. I wrote almost because sometimes the name was not kept, but it must be said that I was in the process of modification and therefore the distinct cut was constantly updated.

Therefore my application as a solidworks deacon and if there is a quick method to export with the criterion described above, since as you can imagine in everyday work it is required not to miss but also to do things quickly. rather faster.

I say this but with a bit of a lot of uncertainty, so put a big, big conditioner on it. if in the body save you make the option build together should rebuild the part as together exporting only one body per folder.

 

[tanticapelli]

I think the function eliminates bodies is the solution to the problem because I tried with the body saver together and it doesn't seem to solve the problem.
instead with eliminates bodies cleans me the distinct cut both of the original parts and of the one where I put all the prospectives.
we say that we don't talk about automatism because we have to make "eye" selections and also give the names manually to the bodies that derive them (unless someone tells me that you can recall in the body the name given to every single folder of the separate cut).

However it seems a good road to me.

Of course the most worrying thing is to manually rename folders... However, if you delete the separate cut and rehabilitated it I noticed that the numbers of the folders change while being the bodies always the same... lap.. .

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I think the function eliminates bodies is the solution to the problem because I tried with the body saver together and it doesn't seem to solve the problem.

Maybe I remember badly. I'll do some tests tomorrow.

Of course the most worrying thing is to manually rename folders... However, if you delete the separate cut and rehabilitated it I noticed that the numbers of the folders change while being the bodies always the same.

you mean it loses the link to the description name by activating/disactivating the function deletes bodies?

 

[tanticapelli]

you mean it loses the link to the description name by activating/disactivating the function deletes bodies?

no, not in that case, I say that generally, regardless of the use of deletes bodies, if for some reason I decided to reset the cut distinction by clicking with the dx and deleting from the set of features (because maybe I decided to change prefix imposed by the description item), the numbering of the folders no longer starts from the number 1 but slipped forward, which I find is dangerous because those numbers are valuable for "bate"

I don't know if I explained. . .

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

you explained, but it does not seem to me an abnormal behavior (excluding the progressive number)
delete the distinct and lose all info. If then I'd regrow her, she's got no info to recover and she's in her head.
if you have to change the imposed prefix it is not better to change the various descriptions rather?
According to me the folder name serves to help in the modeling phase, but then in the design it should recall the description value or who for him because I know that it is not arbitrarily modified by solid.
I'll always make you one of my cuffol logor examples.
I make my separate so that the description is propagated to the folder name. during modeling I change one of two equal bodies; of course a new folder is created to which I immediately settle the properties and consequently folder name. Here comes the Baron who tells me to go back to the way it was before. I remove the change and regrow two equal bodies. at this point however, while the description remains unchanged, the folder name goes to putt... and there is no way to make him read the description value.

other folder names to be careful: you can't rename directly (f2) two folders with the same name and often not even with a name used earlier, but then replaced, but you can call two folders equally through the propagation of the description value.

this to tell you not to rely on folder names to create official documents and use folder properties

 

[tanticapelli]

this to tell you not to rely on folder names to create official documents and use folder properties

Okay, that sounds reasonable. But there is still something I miss... from the "saving" properties of the feature manager add a line that is called description but in the field then what do I write to us? because whatever I go to write I will find it identical in each line description of each folder (going to see in the properties from the cut distinction). So you eventually manage these famous folder properties? Could you give me a practical example?
thanks but on a work of certain dimensions certain differences of approach can make a great difference. . .