separating the son from the father

[solid3d]

Bye to all,
in sw is there a possibility to separate the son from the father in the featuremanager?
in practice I need to extrapolate a part obtained with intersections through two parts in common or two separate files and eventually obtained the result I care to keep only that by cleaning the featuremanager as the result I have to use it in another part.

program in use sw2010

Hello and thank you

 

[Mike1967]

Bye to all,
in sw is there a possibility to separate the son from the father in the featuremanager?
in practice I need to extrapolate a part obtained with intersections through two parts in common or two separate files and eventually obtained the result I care to keep only that by cleaning the featuremanager as the result I have to use it in another part.

program in use sw2010

Hello and thank you

the "Abbina" function can definitely do your case.

 

[solid3d]

thanks for the answer

I used it, but I've been tied to my father, but instead I'd like to separate it so that I can get a father function and not a child.
In practice I have a part to which I insert a part b and get c through the command matches, the functions of c I would like to see them so as to delete to and b as I have to insert it in a and join it. the problem that remains tied to and b and when there the amount as part in the program crashes me.
for now as a solution I have created a parasolid of c and within it amount to only that the parasolid in case of structural modification I cannot touch it.

I don't know if I was clear.
Thank you.

 

[marcof]

Bye to all,
in sw is there a possibility to separate the son from the father in the featuremanager?
in practice I need to extrapolate a part obtained with intersections through two parts in common or two separate files and eventually obtained the result I care to keep only that by cleaning the featuremanager as the result I have to use it in another part.
program in use sw2010
Hello and thank you

this need of "cleaning" the feature manager doesn't happen, besides the fact that it is not clear if you are talking about two files together or two files intended as a part file that contains an imported part.
if you want to create a file from the result of the intersection of two parts within a single part or two distinct bodies within the same part do as mike said using the command "Abbina", then in the feature manager go to the solid body, right click and choose "insert into the new part". saves the result in a new part file and of course the feature manager will be "clean" :redface: but the only function present will have in external references the matching function of the source file. If you want to sneak out teporaneously from the source file you can block external references, and when you unblock the ni file changes of origin will update the model. If you want to unleash yourself, stop external references or save as step.
These are the options that come to my mind, although I don't understand what the difficulty of using the part that contains the result of the feature "abbina" at the end of the feature manager, but you know this

edit:
I've seen your message on it now, but I'm leaving it because it's still valid.
doing as you indicated creates a circular reference that will continue to rotate for the next 20 years fose for what you swx you offend.. .
try to insert it by interrupting or blocking external references, although then I don't think you can update them anymore so it is worth you to create saved directly in step and reimport.
Of course you have to make a very strange model to need all these evolutions

 

[Mike1967]

thanks for the answer

I used it, but I've been tied to my father, but instead I'd like to separate it so that I can get a father function and not a child.
In practice I have a part to which I insert a part b and get c through the command matches, the functions of c I would like to see them so as to delete to and b as I have to insert it in a and join it. the problem that remains tied to and b and when there the amount as part in the program crashes me.
for now as a solution I created a parasolid of c and within it amount to only that the parasolid in the event of structural change can not touch it.

I don't know if I was clear.
Thank you.

there is the instrument of recognition functions, in these cases.

 

[Oldwarper]

thanks for the answer

I used it, but I've been tied to my father, but instead I'd like to separate it so that I can get a father function and not a child.
In practice I have a part to which I insert a part b and get c through the command matches, the functions of c I would like to see them so as to delete to and b as I have to insert it in a and join it. the problem that remains tied to and b and when there the amount as part in the program crashes me.
for now as a solution I have created a parasolid of c and within it amount to only that the parasolid in case of structural modification I cannot touch it.

I don't know if I was clear.
Thank you.

I don't understand how the acrocco works, but I think you have a problem with design logic. . .

with a and b you get c, then take off b and a and put it back in to... anyone who sees that there is a problem, as it would be enough not to delete to... unless it is repositioned. In this case you should first make a copy of a (a1) and so you find c and a1.

I think you'd better do everything with axioms and use divids or cavities. It's more flexible even if you have more files. At most, you can save the axieme as a part.

for the fact of using parts released from the tree, I do it every day. in the molds the part I use as a sheet is a body devoid of history, much lighter and without problems of reconstruction. if I have to change the original piece, just update it by opening both files (father with tree and child without) and update.

even, I often have a file with the part. from this file I get a body that I open and on which I make the various configurations for molding. These configurations are saved as separate parts. from here is created a file for the strip with all stations. from this another file with the configurations that will be used in the strip that will undergo hairstyle operations.

in the strip I could at the limit use the first. How many steps did I do? to you counts.:biggrin::biggrin:

the advantage is to have a much lighter set and a management of the extremely easy changes, "for changing centers", instead of having an inform and incomprehensible connection in a single file that if it is impuxxana (as I happened...) compels you to an immanent job. disadvantage: so many more files and verify that the changes are propagonized once done in the first file (this is seconds).

 

[re_solidworks]

the advantage is to have a much lighter set and a management of the extremely easy changes, "for changing centers", instead of having an inform and incomprehensible connection in a single file that if it is impuxxana (as I happened...) compels you to an immanent job. disadvantage: so many more files and verify that the changes are propagonized once done in the first file (this is seconds).

It is true that it is seconds, but in the last times I have really happened many antipathic jokes with external references.
I have drawn the conclusion that it is problems related to the complexity of the assemblies, but the fact remains that many "eye" controls must be carried out to be sure to produce correct designs.
I'm talking about jokes like: create a top down set, it is correct, save and close. reopen and there are geometric anomalies do 2-3 ctrl+q and everything goes back to place. Save, close and reopen and it's okay. Reopen it for 30 times and it's okay, but at 31st, when you stop checking, the anomaly comes back.
I think that more than programmers need a psychiatrist to understand the behavior of this cad in certain situations.
We are not talking about the assistance that I have decided not to ask in the future, both for the answers of the dealer and the mother's house.

After this controversy I wanted to say to use external references as they are the only effective means to solve several problems, but it is necessary to carefully monitor the behavior of the cad in the presence of complex realities because it could be not too predictable.

 

[Oldwarper]

It is true that it is seconds, but in the last times I have really happened many antipathic jokes with external references.
I have drawn the conclusion that it is problems related to the complexity of the assemblies, but the fact remains that many "eye" controls must be carried out to be sure to produce correct designs.
I'm talking about jokes like: create a top down set, it is correct, save and close. reopen and there are geometric anomalies do 2-3 ctrl+q and everything goes back to place. Save, close and reopen and it's okay. Reopen it for 30 times and it's okay, but at 31st, when you stop checking, the anomaly comes back.
I think that more than programmers need a psychiatrist to understand the behavior of this cad in certain situations.
We are not talking about the assistance that I have decided not to ask in the future, both for the answers of the dealer and the mother's house.

After this controversy I wanted to say to use external references as they are the only effective means to solve several problems, but it is necessary to carefully monitor the behavior of the cad in the presence of complex realities because it could be not too predictable.

It's because of this stupid behavior that I was forced to use the derived parts. to be able to "block" several reconstructive steps, which I can only retrace if necessary. and in that case I will have to open all the files in reference (without forgetting someone) to do the reconstruction.
together with the configurations the external references are a "black beast" of swx that often forces them to bypass them to have a proper behavior of a set (e.g. a set with 40 configurations with common references that I had to manually reproduce in subaxiemes or bind them to a skekeketon seen the propagation "difettosa" of the reference plans).

 

[re_solidworks]

It's because of this stupid behavior that I was forced to use the derived parts. to be able to "block" several reconstructive steps, which I can only retrace if necessary. and in that case I will have to open all the files in reference (without forgetting someone) to do the reconstruction.
together with the configurations the external references are a "black beast" of swx that often forces them to bypass them to have a proper behavior of a set (e.g. a set with 40 configurations with common references that I had to manually reproduce in subaxiemes or bind them to a skekeketon seen the propagation "difettosa" of the reference plans).

the problem is that they worked egregiously until 2007 and then suffered a decline proportional to the increase in performance in the assemblies. that they "cut" too much?

 

[SolidUser]

I don't understand, I'm sure you're producing a circular reference.
If you place an example or an image it is easier to understand your needs.