part management - layers

[stef_design]

returning "in-tope"
we try to imagine the import of an iges file from another system, with inside many geometries on various layers.
If we didn't have them in nx, you know what a mess?

for "many geometries" what do you mean?

 

[beppino]

for "many geometries" what do you mean?

if, for example, I must import an iges file created by a system that does not manage the assembly, but only the layers, in which there is in full motor of all the elements (one per layer), perhaps of the same color.

 

[Utente NX]

returning "in-tope"
we try to imagine the import of an iges file from another system, with inside many geometries on various layers.
If we didn't have them in nx, you know what a mess?

I don't know the igs as I haven't used it for many years, but the step and parasolid have the hidden and visible management.
importing an object with hidden and visible entities as the original is equal to having them on the layers.
management and activation is more expensive than a simple show or hide on features.

The layers for me are just a complication.

 

[stef_design]

If we didn't have them in nx, you know what a mess?

Okay, let's do a test? you post an example with the various entities grouped in the layer and see what happens with other cad.

 

[beppino]

I don't know the igs as I haven't used it for many years, but the step and parasolid have the hidden and visible management.
importing an object with hidden and visible entities as the original is equal to having them on the layers.
management and activation is more expensive than a simple show or hide on features.

The layers for me are just a complication.

if you do not use it you are lucky, but unfortunately still exists.

the imported iges file in nx puts the various geometries on the various layers, and, if set at the origin, also creates the categories.
on in imported iges files there are no features.

When I talk about iges in this forum it seems like you've been talking about something that's been released for decades... but only my customers use to work like this?

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

the layers are fundamental!:finger:
I don't know him well, do the layers come from you as a rule?

 

[The_Matrix]

the layers are fundamental!:finger:
I don't know him well, do the layers come from you as a rule?

The layers are hateful. :finger:
Overcharity... only the automatic layers are missing. No, fortunately at least that perverse mechanism is not there.
abortion.
ps: Now in pro/e if you put the solid on a layer and turn it off?

 

[stef_design]

in layer sono fondamentali !:finger:

I'm not here. It's a policy to previlege geometric groups to the layers:finger:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

The layers are hateful. :finger:
Overcharity... only the automatic layers are missing. No, fortunately at least that perverse mechanism is not there.
abortion.
ps: Now in pro/e if you put the solid on a layer and turn it off?

nothing easier to work as you must, without complicating life. :tongue:
However you can choose between layers,simplified representations or family table.
It's been a long time since the solid...:tongue:

I'm not here. It's a policy to previlege geometric groups to the layers:finger:

Can you explain it to me?

 

[ceschi1959]

of reference set...that is a priori in the part you have to decide what could be useful to see together.

I think your post has been misinterpreted by other users not nx.
If your working method is this you can't say you have to.
In nx there are other possibilities and, depending on experience, habit, business directives or other, various methods are used.

interesting to see the answers of other cad users who can tell you the arrangements of organization present in other systems.

 

[matfio]

I don't know the igs as I haven't used it for many years, but the step and parasolid have the hidden and visible management.
importing an object with hidden and visible entities as the original is equal to having them on the layers.
management and activation is more expensive than a simple show or hide on features.

The layers for me are just a complication.

What do you think???? ? I hope a joke!

 

[matfio]

of reference set...that is a priori in the part you have to decide what could be useful to see together.
then create these reference sets to be used in the environment together.
I'll give you an example:
I design a part and create plans that could be useful to place it in the environment together.
then I create a reference set with the part and plans I will use in the environment together.
then in the environment together, I realize that I also need to display a sketch to better place or design a flange.
within the part and I create this reference set.

If you do not like this method use another because nx gives you several possibilities...... not one! :biggrin:

 

[The_Matrix]

I'm not here. It's a policy to previlege geometric groups to the layers:finger:

from what I know there are, but they are practically unused in favor of the geometry set.

 

[The_Matrix]

nothing easier to work as you must, without complicating life. :tongue:
However you can choose between layers,simplified representations or family table.
It's been a long time since the solid...:tongue:


Can you explain it to me?

I have always hated pro/e that to manage the views of solids uses ft or simplify.. .
There are clients who have fts for anything.. .
as long as you're in pro/e it's okay (well... I find it a useless waste of resources), but when you become a multi-system company it is a casino (think of pdm, cam, dtp, dmu to extended display).

 

[The_Matrix]

If you do not like this method use another because nx gives you several possibilities...... not one! :biggrin:

Moreover, in nx the ref sets are absolutely regulated. . .
According to me, starting from nx7.5, it is enough 1, the part (to tell the fiat) or model or call it as you please.
the ref set for the mating according to me does not need if you can use (and use) the product interface.
Once I was in fiat, before they regulated the ref sets... you had to put a motor in the bay layout... I add the engine... A mess of aces, plans, lines... Oh my god... he didn't understand 'na mazza.
the user of the engine, called after an hour of amalgamation. . "But you didn't activate the ref set bleic box?" (right bleic box called it... not black box).
#£@§§§§%& °°@@

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I have always hated pro/e that to manage the views of solids uses ft or simplify.. .
There are clients who have fts for anything.. .
as long as you're in pro/e it's okay (well... I find it a useless waste of resources), but when you become a multi-system company it is a casino (think of pdm, cam, dtp, dmu to extended display).

depends on the way you work and the methodology you use the program, I do not use the ft ne le simplify to manage the solids but precisely the layers and are very comfortable with the rules and clearly use the appropriate interfaces to place the components on the flight especially as when you say you have to deal with a certain type of company and machinery. .

fts serve to dimension
Rapps serve to remove or put non-manage entire solids
the layers serve to show hiding all those references that we have served for the construction of the final model.
It is clear that if you call them p, that other plane that plane plan-c, and go, in the final list and in the assembly environment do first to shoot you, so you use rules...:wink:

 

[Utente NX]

I think your post has been misinterpreted by other users not nx.
If your working method is this you can't say you have to.
In nx there are other possibilities and, depending on experience, habit, business directives or other, various methods are used.

My method of work does not differ from your...trust me... what do you use reference sets in nx?
You will use them to show some and not other geometries in the environment together.
reference sets are not created automatically, apart from 2 system (enter part and model).
That said, isn't it true that reference sets should be thought a priori?
reference set of positioning (in case certain floors turn useful for positioning), geometric ones, etc.. to make examples.
if the plan contained in the reference set created by your colleague is not the ideal one or another one to better define its positioning, because in your project you have to place it at 16 instead of 90°, do not enter the part and edit the reference set or create a specific one?
same thing for geometric reference sets.
and if the part is blocked because it is released?
Are you comfortable?
wouldn't it be better to select what you're interested in in the part and make a 'show / hide'?
putting things on the levels in the reference set model and managing the display together is a brothel.. .

I don't know what projects and what method you use, both at reference set level and levels (I would be curious to know), because for me and my colleagues... the reference set and the levels, if we can avoid them.

I'll give you an example.
we do not put the plans on the 61st and next, we hide them and if we need to see it, we show.
simple.
then everyone is free to do what they think best, but simple things make life simple, especially in a team of designers where everyone could put his... in good and bad.

 

[Utente NX]

the ref set for the mating according to me does not need if you can use (and use) the product interface.

product interfaces do not have graphical interface and do not know if they were created.
if you define the product interface and insert a component, the user does not know what the entities defined in the product interface are.
so much it is worth using the 'remember constraints'.
However the reference set of positioning arise for convenience to oviate to some colleague who created a hundred floors and you only need two to place it.
I'm making examples... maybe banal... but I don't see the usefulness.
in fact we have 3 reference set (full, model and tiled (death with 7.5)).

 

[matfio]

Excuse me if I interfere in your beating but I have a different opinion:

reference sets are not created automatically, apart from 2 system (enter part and model).

Luckily they're not automatic, you know what a disaster... .

That said, isn't it true that reference sets should be thought a priori?

if you use this method you have to think first about what you need

reference set of positioning (in case certain floors turn useful for positioning), geometric ones, etc.. to make examples.
if the plan contained in the reference set created by your colleague is not the ideal one or another one to better define its positioning, because in your project you have to place it at 16 instead of 90°, do not enter the part and edit the reference set or create a specific one?
same thing for geometric reference sets.
and if the part is blocked because it is released?
Are you comfortable?
wouldn't it be better to select what you're interested in in the part and make a 'show / hide'?
putting things on the levels in the reference set model and managing the display together is a brothel.. .

I don't know what projects and what method you use, both at reference set level and levels (I would be curious to know), because for me and my colleagues... the reference set and the levels, if we can avoid them.

I'll give you an example.
we do not put the plans on the 61st and next, we hide them and if we need to see it, we show.
simple.
then everyone is free to do what they think best, but simple things make life simple, especially in a team of designers where everyone could put his... in good and bad.

... and if you need a 14.5° plan after a change to the component?
And if you add a hole? and if... and if...
in the design phase you can never accurately determine what you need so......
if you are a team I can propose to organize the layers and thus loading the component together and putting it in original layer and reference "entire part" you can use the axieme to see or not the datums, surfaces, solids, etc. of any compost of the axieme in use and in the end you can comfortably put the reference in "model"

 

[matfio]

product interfaces do not have graphical interface and do not know if they were created.
if you define the product interface and insert a component, the user does not know what the entities defined in the product interface are.

i product interface li vedi benissimo basta attivare un flag in preferences - assembly - emphasize product interface objects