replace a component

[dema]

and why is it not possible to use component interfaces?

I don't know how many people can think or risk using a family table.

and why is it not possible to use component interfaces?

no one says that it is not possible to use them, in fact for some commercials they use, but in a company of several hundred employees which is the one for which my study works I do not think it is possible that without apparent reason, put in change then return to archive the details.

I have to work as an outsider for a company that already has hundreds if not thousands of details archived so you can not expect to change all the details to put on us the "component interfaces"

if there is no way to replace a particular already archived with another one also archived without having to change it will mean that I will have to redefine all the constraints amen:redface:

 

[maxopus]

in nx that is less sketchy than bvp, enters the component, from any name to entities in coupling (a, b, c, etc.).
save as of the component... from the new (also made from zero) the same names (a, b, c, etc) and the coupling is done on the names and not on the id.
Are you sure you can't do this in the bvp?

the component interface function serves precisely to this, to assign the names to the mating references, in this way the coupling is referred to the names instead of the id feature.
What do you mean by bvp?

 

[maxopus]

I don't know how many people can think or risk using a family table.


no one says that it is not possible to use them, in fact for some commercials they use, but in a company of several hundred employees which is the one for which my study works I do not think it is possible that without apparent reason, put in change then return to archive the details.

I'll be tough but I still don't understand what the risk of using family tables is.

 

[dema]

boh I don't know, I'm just an employee of an outside studio, so what you want me to do, they tell me what I can do, and I'll organize myself to the best until they tell me that what I did I couldn't do, but they forgot to tell me.

 

[dema]

another reason why we do not use the family tables on details is a certain difficulty in storing the drawings "perhaps by ignorance of who does the archiving" or for problems with windchill®pdmlink 9.1

For example, it is a few days ago the problem with the placing on the table of a particular sheet and its development, obtained with a family table where the unbend was either suppressed.

this has brought several problems in the mopment of the archiving, I do not know exactly what because it is made in the company that is located from our office some km

 

[maxopus]

There is something wrong with your client, if I were in them I would like to contact ptc to understand where they are wrong, I do not think it is rational to use half the program and give up important features only because there is a problem.
think about the time losses that could only avoid with this...

 

[DANI-3D]

I fully agree, if my family tables were taken away, I would be a dead man!
I introduce myself to the discussion to tell you that I set the management of a big project (press bending machines) all with the fts and I look great.
both commercials, motors, antivibrants, fittings, guides, skates, vices etc. that drawing details I try to manage them via ft, this allows me to switch from one model to another simply with the "replace" without losing any bond, relationships, references, quotas in the distinct drw etc.
The last time they asked me to make a new model I did it in about two hours.

 

[stef_design]

What do you mean by bvp?

bby U vEgg proe

 

[The_Matrix]

There is something wrong with your client, if I were in them I would like to contact ptc to understand where they are wrong, I do not think it is rational to use half the program and give up important features only because there is a problem.
think about the time losses that could only avoid with this...

While I thank stef for saying what bvp is, I take advantage of it to say that pdms often, along with undoubted management advantages, bring with them some limitations in the use of features cad.
fts are s&v one of these for the difficulty of being handled in viewers and publishing systems for example where you are not available to pro/e to generate children.

 

[Preparation-H]

but they are 3 components to reassemble them you put 3 seconds... :

Bye!
p-h

 

[Therapy?]

if the new component you saved by making a copy and changing an existing feature there is no problem

It is enough that in the main axieme you renounce the subaxis to be changed by the name of the new version; at this point save everything, then create the real copy of the new version and save it above the other (of course you will get out the message that the name is already existing) : the game is made

Sometimes I happen to use this method "unorthodox" but it works the important thing is not to mess with the names and that the new component is a copy of the old (otherwise the ids of the features are not the same and skip the couplings)