part management - layers

[The_Matrix]

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)).

full? What is it? What's the point?

 

[Utente NX]

Excuse me if I interfere in your beating but I have a different opinion:
Luckily they're not automatic, you know what a disaster... .
if you use this method you have to think first about what you need

... 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"

laughing and joking is so... things change in the design or evolution of the product.

As for your method... it doesn't seem like the most comfortable... but let's see what they think about it.
1) subdivid the entities into the layers...which are unique.. . Otherwise you can confuse...the plan a on 61, the plan b on 62, the curve a on 41, the curve b on 42 etc.
2) then I put the parts together as entire part and skillful only in the environment together the layer number x, hoping that it is not the same as other 30 parts...other than beautiful set of plans.
3) done everything, I put the part on the reference set 'model'

now...for nx users and for non nx users...think it is convenient in nx use reference sets and layers to temporarily view certain entities of the part.
for me it's a time and patience. . There's always no jam.

the idea of not managing reference sets and layers... and using the exhibition and hiding.
then I would love that in nx implement the possibility of interacting on the features in the environment together.

 

[Utente NX]

full? What is it? What's the point?

I give birth..... dark... because it shows you everything.
I had to use the correct term.

 

[The_Matrix]

laughing and joking is so... things change in the design or evolution of the product.

As for your method... it doesn't seem like the most comfortable... but let's see what they think about it.
1) subdivid the entities into the layers...which are unique.. . Otherwise you can confuse...the plan a on 61, the plan b on 62, the curve a on 41, the curve b on 42 etc.
2) then I put the parts together as entire part and skillful only in the environment together the layer number x, hoping that it is not the same as other 30 parts...other than beautiful set of plans.
3) done everything, I put the part on the reference set 'model'

now...for nx users and for non nx users...think it is convenient in nx use reference sets and layers to temporarily view certain entities of the part.
for me it's a time and patience. . There's always no jam.

the idea of not managing reference sets and layers... and using the exhibition and hiding.then I would love that in nx implement the possibility of interacting on the features in the environment together.

I only use the hide/unhide, perhaps by grouping everything that is not model on layer 6, if I must.
ref set model is automatic and collects solids and surfaces on layer 1. Stop.
the 7.5 facet no longer needs.

nx user excuse, which means "I would love that in nx implement the possibility of interacting on the features in the environment together"?

 

[Utente NX]

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

you are right...in the process of insertion you understand, but it would be useful to have an icon on the part to understand whether or not the part has been configured with the product interface.

 

[ceschi1959]

My method of work does not differ from your...trust. . .

I don't know, everyone has their own peculiarities and experiences, I know mine but not yours.

What do you use reference sets in nx?
You will use them to show some and not other geometries in the environment together.

depends on the job I do, the customer of the moment.
you can use a reference set to assign an attribute, for example, and not only to display geometry.
when project 'liberally' I do not work them because I do not need them, nor to display geometry or to create positioning references.
when instead project in a structure where there are rules to follow (so that each user knows where to look) I follow those.

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

system reference are the part empty

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

It's not true!

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 or another one is missing to better define its positioning, because in your project you have to place it to 16th instead of 90°, not to enter the part and edit the reference set or create a specific one?

I think so (it never happened to me), but first I fustigo your colleague (not my who is very good) who did not create an ideal reference set.
It seems, from how you tell, or from how I happen, that if you don't exactly predict all the reference sets and you realize that you need others you have to throw the project. instead it is only a 'smaronata' of work part and display part and nothing more. has it ever happened to you instead of starting with the clear ideas and inputs and finding you in the middle of the project that you have to overwhelm everything? I did, and if I hadn't had a nx software, I don't know if I would've left.

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.

and do well if you find this method more productive than others, but maybe you compare it to corporate standards that force you to put that thing there in that place etc. etc.
for me the speech is different in the sense that I have the maximum autonomy and therefore I do what in that circumstance makes me work. then the client wants the lines in plan 44 and the circles in 27? at the end of the project I do.

 

[Utente NX]

nx user excuse, which means "I would love that in nx implement the possibility of interacting on the features in the environment together"?

to me would like to expand the part and see the features, as attached image.

 

[matfio]

laughing and joking is so... things change in the design or evolution of the product.

As for your method... it doesn't seem like the most comfortable... but let's see what they think about it.
1) subdivid the entities into the layers...which are unique.. . Otherwise you can confuse...the plan a on 61, the plan b on 62, the curve a on 41, the curve b on 42 etc.
2) then I put the parts together as entire part and skillful only in the environment together the layer number x, hoping that it is not the same as other 30 parts...other than beautiful set of plans.
3) done everything, I put the part on the reference set 'model'

now...for nx users and for non nx users...think it is convenient in nx use reference sets and layers to temporarily view certain entities of the part.
for me it's a time and patience. . There's always no jam.

the idea of not managing reference sets and layers... and using the exhibition and hiding.
then I would love that in nx implement the possibility of interacting on the features in the environment together.

Perhaps it would be better to tell it well.... let's make a banal example. . .
team of designers who follow common rules for managing feature on levels.
for example solid main level 1, datum fixed main on level 10, etc.
logic together: components with reference set entire part and original layer
1- open a file together new

2- add together a "box" component and if necessary the constraints (depends on the project) using the levels (see that everyone respects the positions of the features know very well what to activate), then I have two solutions : the first is to hide (hide) the component, the second use reference set (model) to see only the solid

3- add a second component "cover" and the constraints with "box" references, using the various methods indicated in point 2

4- add a third "float" component and ties it with the "coperchi" or with the "box" , idem as written above

5- ahead with the next component

It doesn't seem to me to be ostic, it just needs to understand how it works and I have to say that this wonderful software gives the possibility to do beyond what it says above as you say, like matrix etc.

I do not have a precise method in using nx functions because I have customers with different specifications one from the other (coach team from 10 to 50 and maybe more than designers) so I adapt and above all I have to know how to use them.
when I can manage I follow a method that is more appropriate to me to speed up the design and this fortunately nx allows it unlike caia, pro-e that do not have the "fully open"

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

when I can manage I follow a method that is more appropriate to me to speed up the design and this fortunately nx allows it unlike caia, pro-e that do not have the "fully open"

I find your procedure correct and clean, but I don't understand why you should say that cat or pro-e don't have the mind open, you used so thoroughly both?
I speak for pro/e is the same methodology, only that speaking in English the reference sets are called component interface, but the layers are those, and the rules layers if we want to be lazy and precise do that work automatically, without filtering anything.

greetings

 

[matfio]

I find your procedure correct and clean, but I don't understand why you should say that cat or pro-e don't have the mind open, you used so thoroughly both?
I speak for pro/e is the same methodology, only that speaking in English the reference sets are called component interface, but the layers are those, and the rules layers if we want to be lazy and precise do that work automatically, without filtering anything.

greetings

I didn't say they can't.... .

 

[stef_design]

I didn't say they can't.... .

cmq seems to see that even nx has its limits (see post on modification features in assembly context).

I'll tell you a secret. the perfect cad:finger:

 

[maxopus]

I didn't say they can't.... .

No... you just said they don't have an open mind, what it means I don't know, but you threw in the mix a common place of 4 money.
because if you knew pro/e you would not have made such a statement.

with the same criterion, I could tell you that the calculation power, stability and configurability of pro/e .... If she dreams of them every holy night, what would you think?

Let us take your nx, which we shall take for pros,

 

[Utente NX]

Perhaps it would be better to tell it well.... let's make a banal example. . .
team of designers who follow common rules for managing feature on levels.
for example solid main level 1, datum fixed main on level 10, etc.
logic together: components with reference set entire part and original layer
1- open a file together new

2- add together a "box" component and if necessary the constraints (depends on the project) using the levels (see that everyone respects the positions of the features know very well what to activate), then I have two solutions : the first is to hide (hide) the component, the second use reference set (model) to see only the solid

3- add a second component "cover" and the constraints with "box" references, using the various methods indicated in point 2

4- add a third "float" component and ties it with the "coperchi" or with the "box" , idem as written above

5- ahead with the next component

It doesn't seem to me to be ostic, it just needs to understand how it works and I have to say that this wonderful software gives the possibility to do beyond what it says above as you say, like matrix etc.

I do not have a precise method in using nx functions because I have customers with different specifications one from the other (coach team from 10 to 50 and maybe more than designers) so I adapt and above all I have to know how to use them.
when I can manage I follow a method that is more appropriate to me to speed up the design and this fortunately nx allows it unlike caia, pro-e that do not have the "fully open"

then going to levels, how do you view the 'x' level only of a component or 2 components, since the rules are common to all?
if you have to see the plan that is on level 31, how many components have the level 31?
visualizing the level 31 in the environment together, you do it global, who knows how many components have the level 31.
If the aid is 500 parts.... I think we've got a big mess...
in this case....go with other methods to use with levels.
What?
I will be a white fly....but the levels do not find them useful, of simple management, understanding and maintenance, immediately and for successive revisions of axiemi (on which is the level of the curve I need to create the sweep of the edge....).
if the levels were managed in the environment together with the level of individual parts, then I would find them more useful, but globally, it becomes a calderon.

 

[matfio]

No... you just said they don't have an open mind, what it means I don't know, but you threw in the mix a common place of 4 money.
because if you knew pro/e you would not have made such a statement.

with the same criterion, I could tell you that the calculation power, stability and configurability of pro/e .... If she dreams of them every holy night, what would you think?

Let us take your nx, which we shall take for pros,

If you don't know what it means then why comments

 

[matfio]

visualizing the level 31 in the environment together, you do it global, who knows how many components have the level 31.
If the aid is 500 parts.... I think we've got a big mess...
in this case....go with other methods to use with levels.

I don't understand why you have to keep active (repeat: or use reference set "model" or hide/show) the 498 parts if you only have to bind part 499 with the 500....

 

[matfio]

cmq seems to see that even nx has its limits (see post on modification features in assembly context).

I'll tell you a secret. the perfect cad:finger:

and I'll tell you another secret: is the person who has to understand the limits to use it at best

 

[stef_design]

If you don't know what it means then why comments

then explained...no

 

[matfio]

then explained...no

I just say that I find pro-e and catia more ostic in managing at level together components and their constraints unlike nx
Anyway I don't see why being aggressive... (maxopus)
I know from different experience cad and I know with certainty that there is no perfect cad only cad that does things better than another and vice versa.
for several years I use nx and I find myself well but especially because I have customers who need the native but if tomorrow morning nobody uses more nx I simply fit, as I always did, and I will try to use to the maximum the potential of the new cad

 

[IPdesign]

first call to order

I would like to invite you to avoid unnecessary diatribes that are not constructive.
falling into flame is a moment, a word pulls the other etc..
stick to the tread and try to post answers or constructive questions .

thanks to all

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

and I'll tell you another secret: is the person who has to understand the limits to use it at best

It doesn't rain on this. but I think stef knows very well.

I just say that I find pro-e and catia more ostic in managing at level together components and their constraints unlike nx
Anyway I don't see why being aggressive... (maxopus)
I know from different experience cad and I know with certainty that there is no perfect cad only cad that does things better than another and vice versa.
for several years I use nx and I find myself well but especially because I have customers who need the native but if tomorrow morning nobody uses more nx I simply fit, as I always did, and I will try to use to the maximum the potential of the new cad

explain to me why the most hostical then, you are saying things that can also be right, but they should be motivated by sensible explanations in my view.

first call to order

I would like to invite you to avoid unnecessary diatribes that are not constructive.
falling into flame is a moment, a word pulls the other etc..
stick to the tread and try to post answers or constructive questions .

thanks to all

Right!