use iam or replacement representations?

[Il Mauri]

Good day to all.
so far in all the projects I have done (including from other iams, ipts, vines etc.) I have always used iams in "normal" configuration and not in mode of replacement representations (transformed therefore in ipt).
I would like to use the replacement representations to have the browser of the leaner project but I have the inconvenience of a considerable "weight" of these replacement representations (if the inm weighs me 250kb its replacement representation weighs me 14000).
specific that in the phase of subsequent separate components I absolutely do not care to know the content of the iams that I have inserted - indeed, it is counterproductive since these already finished products having their own code).
I would like to know how you would manage such a project: browser and distinct "light" components with weight of the heavy final project or vice versa?

 

[Zac69]

an iam is "empty" and contains only links to ipts and related constraints. if you make the sum of all the ipts that make up the 250kb iam how much you get?

 

[Il Mauri]

an iam is "empty" and contains only links to ipts and related constraints. if you make the sum of all the ipts that make up the 250kb iam how much you get?

adding them all I do not know, however the derived part (which is an ipt) weighs me well 14000kb.
However I found a satisfactory solution: I turn the iam in part derived of surface with "parts and faces" flagged, I find myself with a quite satisfying part like look and heavy 3800kb.

 

[rf.infissi@libero.it]

I noticed something if you derive iam with active connection the weight (as sum of ipts and iam) is doubled approximately, if instead the connection to the derived iam is interrupted and the part becomes independent then is the exact sum of the various ipts and iam, always about.

 

[Il Mauri]

I noticed something if you derive iam with active connection the weight (as sum of ipts and iam) is doubled approximately, if instead the connection to the derived iam is interrupted and the part becomes independent then is the exact sum of the various ipts and iam, always about.

ah, then. But if I interrupt and then change the father iam does not update the independent derivative of course.

 

[batstar]

I also work with very complex assemblies and I was flattered by the possibility to derive simplified assemblies, unfortunately as it says mauri, they are very heavy and unmanageable. also the possibility of obtaining only one solid with only visible external parts, elimination of internal ones, filling cavities...etc. It's pure utopia, it doesn't exist, it makes a lot of mistakes and eliminates even visible parts, a real mess!

 

[Il Mauri]

at this point perhaps it is better to create a derivative assembly that contains only the outer shell (e.g. a box made of cap container and closing screws). In this way you would have the external encumbrance and in case of sending the 3d to potential customers would not reveal the internal content.

 

[batstar]

at this point perhaps it is better to create a derivative assembly that contains only the outer shell (e.g. a box made of cap container and closing screws). In this way you would have the external encumbrance and in case of sending the 3d to potential customers would not reveal the internal content.

the problem is just that: if you do it on a simple box as you say it can also work, (maybe), on a set with hundreds of components just does not work!

 

[Catafratto]

look at this discussion http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/threads/45696-conversione-assieme?highlight=assieme+sostitutothat treats the same topic. simplified assemblies are a blessing and first you learn to use them better is: they have their "exigenze" to function properly, but I have assiem that without (correct) simplification they put us half an hour to open, with the method described (read well the attachment I posted) 5/6 min.

the weight of the single file doesn't matter so much, at the end it matters as time opens and how it manages.. .

 

[batstar]

the basic operazone is always the simplified axieme, and that's where it makes me a lot of mistakes!

 

[Catafratto]

to me only gives them when I choose unsuitable settings to the axieme that I'm dealing with. Inaccuracies can be there and sometimes I don't understand where "touch" is, but it works well. After my first attempts I had reached your conclusion and let it go, then at a presentation I saw how it really works and changed my mind to great.
I insist because I don't want others to be discouraged by experimenting with technique based on your experience... as you see from the discussion that I have linked to others goes great and personally I repeat that I find it a blessing.

 

[Ilario]

I'm one of those who's been sororized, but not because they don't understand the functionality, indeed, you see it's a nice method... Just that with the archive full of assemblies, I should go to "predispose" one by one and since they are alone in the office and considering that it takes a lot of time because the thing works duty, I let it go.
If I had to have a time when I have less to do, I might want to go back, and I think that if you are in the office with more people, dedicate a person for a tot period to this arrangement, it could benefit.

 

[batstar]

I'm one of those who's been sororized, but not because they don't understand the functionality, indeed, you see it's a nice method... Just that with the archive full of assemblies, I should go to "predispose" one by one and since they are alone in the office and considering that it takes a lot of time because the thing works duty, I let it go.
If I had to have a time when I have less to do, I might want to go back, and I think that if you are in the office with more people, dedicate a person for a tot period to this arrangement, it could benefit.

I agree with myself.
However, I find it ridiculous that a software as an inventor does not have a simple command of a true simplified contour of any set, and make me skin only outside that [Bleep] takes! ! !