patter component with arrangement

[john570]

Hello, everyone!
My name is John, I am a mechanical designer and currently working in a machine manufacturer. the company has passed from about a year to nx; the previous cad was creo direct (the old cocreate, not proe, for those who know it!) so the jump we are making is epochal.
but we come to the question: How do I manage a component pattern with arrangement? I tell you what my need is: I have various axioms on which, at the distinct level, always appears a subset, which contains n legs, each consisting of a base, an element of regulation and a head. These feet are arranged in a very regular chessboard, which I manage perfectly with a component pattern. but the distance between "righe and columns" varies. I would like to realize a set of arrangements in which for each one I manage the step in each of the 2 directions, so as to recall it in the assieme father. How can I do that?

 

[biXel]

Bye.
If I have understood correctly, what you want to manage is contained in the "assieme son l in the context together father.
so I would say that you can create specific arrangements on sub-assiems in the context with Father.
Oh, my God, I don't know if I explained drinking..(and always if I understood what you want to get).
?

 

[john570]

Hello bixel
Thank you for your answer. I think you understood my problem, but at this point I didn't understand your proposal. I try to explain better: in a set I have a default arrangement where, once the basic component is installed, the position of others is defined with a component pattern. such pattern has step_1 in direction 1 and step_2 in direction 2. I can define a new arrangement where in direction 1 I step_3 and in direction 2 step_4? I did not find this option in the definition of the arrangement.
Thanks again

 

[ceschi1959]

ciao @ n570 , and welcome to the fantastic world nx... :
a solution to the question you can see in the attached image.
as you know the arrangements can manage in addition to the conditions of constraint, also the condition of suppression of the component.
the proposed solution is to make as many component patterns as the arrangements you need and suppress all the components you don't need.
in any bom these components will not be counted.
I hope I explained. Hi.
p.s. would be good to say that version of nx uses, thank you.

 

[john570]

Hello baskets1959
Thank you very much for your answer, you were very clear.
the version I use of nx is 1926, as major release.
I take advantage of your courtesy to ask you something else: Since I have to remake the patterns for each arrangement, is there a way to do the "copy-paste" of the basic components so that they also carry the positioning constraints?
Thanks again and good day!

 

[john570]

article better my answer: I only ask you because I saw that you did not suppress the basic element of the pattern, but at the feature of pattern an alert appears. Call me perfectionist but I like to have a clean model!

 

[ceschi1959]

Hello baskets1959
Thank you very much for your answer, you were very clear.
the version I use of nx is 1926, as major release.
I take advantage of your courtesy to ask you something else: Since I have to remake the patterns for each arrangement, is there a way to do the "copy-paste" of the basic components so that they also carry the positioning constraints?
Thanks again and good day!

not knowing how to place the subassieme I left the first element of the pattern common to all, I think in fact that there is an identical pattern, feature or something else, in the arrival aid.

article better my answer: I only ask you because I saw that you did not suppress the basic element of the pattern, but at the feature of pattern an alert appears. Call me perfectionist but I like to have a clean model!

the alrt you see is related to the fact that one of the two patterns has the suppressed components.
to delete it I made a 'global' arrangement (and default put) where all components are active, see image.I'll ask you a question now, what version did you start with? Did you use the new sketch? and if so how do you find it?
currently we work with 1872 and we will pass to 1953, of which I had asked opinions in my previous post https://www.cad3d.it/forum1/threads/nuovo-sketch-in-nx1953.59106/.
Thank you for your answer.
Hi.

 

[john570]

hi ceschi1959,
Thank you again.
Of course I answer you, we'd miss it.
Unfortunately, however, we started with 1872, the same one you use, so I can't make you a big comparison with previous versions. I read your previous post: It is not true that the possibility of deciding first the direction of the sketch, is still there. it is improved, if we want, the ease of orienting the piece, with the fixed manipulator in the bottom left (I take a bit from inventor, if we want to say it). I will tell you that many of my colleagues have taken off the automatic direction of the sketch because they prefer to use this manipulator (remember that they come from a cad for which the sketch manco existed). an important novelty of the latest version are the "single" designs of feature, which speed up the regeneration of the model but must be used "with skull". callout management has changed in drafting, meaning it is a separate command and no longer an option of the generic share. on this point I am quite controversial, because in my personal opinion the drafting management of the holes, especially threaded, is quite worthwhile. I do not conceive as in a "mechanical" cad I cannot quote a hole if it is part of a pattern or if it is derived from subtraction from solid. If you want more feedback, ask me.

 

[ceschi1959]

I installed on my pc 7.5, 9, 11, 1872, 1926 and finally 1953. on the latter the orientation has been removed.
indirectly you gave me another answer and that is you did not see the new sketch with constraint relaxation and a lot of various menades.
I don't understand the hole speech from subtraction of a solid, that is?
talked about features patterns, as well as holes such as other features used in patterns?

 

[john570]

hole obtained from solid subtraction: I mean, if you make a hole with the Boolean option "none" that is, creating a new solid, then subtract it to the main solid at a later time, in drafting you no longer have the opportunity to call it back with the callout. the same if the hole is obtained, this time directly from subtraction, but with a mirror feature. the same if the hole is not the basic hole of a pattern of holes, or if the final solid is obtained with a excract body (which when you use the design groups, at least as we use them, is quite inevitable). It seems a little limiting.
Then, for what features we use in patterns, I can't give you a case, let's say a little bit of everything!
I have the strong feeling that I haven't grasped something in nx's "philosophy", maybe reading your posts I can see more. I see that for example the question of callout holes is never dealt with: This strengthens my feeling!

 

[Utente NX]

I would use other strategies:

1. pts
2. reuse assembly with excel file or krx file

 

[john570]

Thank you.
Unfortunately I do not know these tools well (except for the reuse object and the krx but so far I have always used it for the parts and not for the assemblies), but I document and do some tests.
Thank you very much for the suggestion!