use public geometry to copy geometry

[calacc]

I don't know how to define it as a strategy because it's a little hybrid... My top-down runs out after I did the public geometry and copied the content into an external geometry copy feature. then the piece drawing in bottom up in function also of the table putting

 

[Beth]

good day calacc.

My top-down runs out after I did the public geometry and copied the content into an external geometry copy feature.

Why do you use the external copy geometry and not inside the axieme?

my bottom up instead refers when I copy references from a part below to/in that of destination.

I think there are two possibilities.
or make the references copied with the copy geometry unthinkable (which I avoid doing because I would no longer remember what I made dependent and what not)

or I am careful not to form closed loops in the next part.

Do you agree?

 

[calacc]

Yeah, I share the reasoning. even leaving them dependent should not form loops.

for some reason do you use external copy geometry and not internal to the axieme?

I use public and copy geometry only between side files and never together.

 

[Beth]

I use public and copy geometry only between side files and never together.

for some particular reason... as I use it in a lot together, it seems faster and more practical as well as mandatory in cases where I copy it by default, otherwise I have to create coordinate systems together and find it illogical.

 

[calacc]

There is no particular reason, I think it depends on work. the coordinate systems I use as a reference for assemblies I put them all on the skeleton and if I need them I move them from there. seldom set the details by default.

 

[Beth]

I understand, I'll ask you one last question.

I have the following situation:

I created a skeleton in a first-level set that develops the big of the project at the bone level.
in this together there are many subassiems.
to avoid keeping the entire axieme open and copying the publications always in that position using a lot of memory, I reassembled the first level skeleton even in the subassiemi and so far all right.
Since I can mainly work by opening only the desired subaxieme using much less memory than if I were always working with the first open level.

I have had problems following the restructuring of some parts containing references copied from the first level which once finished in sub-axis no longer find publications of the first level, or better do not fail but can not be redefined by losing time returning to the first level.

know escaqmotage or , different strategies thanks

 

[calacc]

to avoid keeping the entire axieme open and copy the publications always in that position using a lot of memory, I reassembled the first level skeleton even in subassiemi

I believe that the operation of reassembling the skeleton in sub-assiemi may not be digested well by the system. I'm afraid this is the cause of any errors, loops etc...
rather I would have used sub-chambers dependent on the first level skeleton and would have imported them each in the respective sub-assieme.
do you have circular references in this project? I'd try to get rid of those first. then instead of reassembling the first-level skel in sub-assiemi I would create a second-level skel containing a feature of union-heritance from the skel of the first level (even copying external geometry are fine). This can be a way.
a much simpler way I would feel to recommend you to save memory is to use simplified representations. if you are alone working on qs project is ideal. you can create as many as you want, and allow you to gradually open and regenerate the parts you need. Then save them and call them back. If you work alone it doesn't make much sense to me to go mad on public/copy dependent/independent geometry; union inheritance etc... It's just losing time.

 

[Beth]

I believe that the operation of reassembling the skeleton in sub-assiemi may not be digested well by the system. I'm afraid this is the cause of any errors, loops etc...
rather I would have used sub-chambers dependent on the first level skeleton and would have imported them each in the respective sub-assieme.
do you have circular references in this project? I'd try to get rid of those first. then instead of reassembling the first-level skel in sub-assiemi I would create a second-level skel containing a feature of union-heritance from the skel of the first level (even copying external geometry are fine). This can be a way.

never used union- inheritance but I will certainly try

a much simpler way I would feel to recommend you to save memory is to use simplified representations. if you are alone working on qs project is ideal. you can create as many as you want, and allow you to gradually open and regenerate the parts you need. Then save them and call them back. If you work alone it doesn't make much sense to me to go mad on public/copy dependent/independent geometry; union inheritance etc... It's just losing time.

I use these

Thank you very much

 

[calacc]

never used union- inheritance but I will certainly try

yes at the end is a command that can be useful because it is much faster than the publish and copy. only that it is not at all gradual and takes you into all the part to which it refers.
Try not to harm:

a greeting soon, good work

 

[Beth]

hello calaac thank you again

 

[320i S]

Hello everyone
I found this discussion that deals with top down topic and I fit in if possible.

according to you when I perform a copy geometry in sequence not top down but botton up in the skeleton it is good to always make the feature independent?

I threw them but actually the subject is definitely much more articulated.

Unfortunately, my work requires a logic of design sometimes "casual" by copying references to the right and missing and the big limit I have always found is that of circular loops that I often solved by giving independence to copied references, but often and willingly I then quarreled with regeneration.

answer to your question: depends!, depends on your project, in my own, I do not make copy geometry independent, because it is copy geometry and fundamental publications for the axieme, but the axieme of top level, is an end to itself, i.e. it does not have interaction with other projects, also of the same commissioner.

if instead there was an interaction at the level of other projects/assiems that then risk being revised/managed over time, copy geometry can be deleterious, much, so ask whether it is worth making them independent, or even use the "comprimi geometry" to make them completely insensitive to the source file of the copy geometry.

to note that pro-e badly bears reordering components and features together, if there are many copy geometry and generates ".crc" files with many loop levels.

 

[320i S]

There is no particular reason, I think it depends on work. the coordinate systems I use as a reference for assemblies I put them all on the skeleton and if I need them I move them from there. seldom set the details by default.

that for assembling with simple components, is the most wrong practice that can be used... .

 

[320i S]

I have had problems following the restructuring of some parts containing references copied from the first level which once finished in sub-axis no longer find publications of the first level, or better do not fail but can not be redefined by losing time returning to the first level.

normal this, because the various copy geometry, do not refer to the mere part or together from which you picked up the geometry, but also to the level of together where the donor part is present and the skeleton level in which the copy geometry has been passed.
Clearly, if you rebuild, you lose a reference level of copy geometry and at that point you do not recover it if you do not redefine the entire copy geometry.

in my way to see the copy geometry make sense if you do not pass through an intermediate level like the skeleton, if you do not already understand how the stung of the together will be.
If you can't do otherwise, then better have 2 separate projects, i.e. basic modeling, and assembly/industrialization, the second is perfectly free to be assembled as you want, so all parts have the structure of features, perfectly working on the other project assembly, but this implies a fierce organization of design, i.e. no work otherwise.

 

[calacc]

that for assembling with simple components, is the most wrong practice that can be used... .

Actually, it's not like I've been miserable at work. What other method would you recommend? a traditional face-face type assembly; axis-axis; etc...?

 

[320i S]

Actually, it's not like I've been miserable at work. What other method would you recommend? a traditional face-face type assembly; axis-axis; etc...?

exact loved ones and old constraints.

 

[calacc]

exact loved ones and old constraints.

but they have the defect that are very sensitive to changes because they can jump easily. I started using them less precisely because they often failed me the assemblies. and then they are many fewer clicks to place the components because it is enough to make the two coordinate systems coincide and you are in place, much more difficult than failing the assemblies so. at the most you find two components that have a wrong positioning, I immediately notice and set up

 

[320i S]

"you deal with it immediately" depends, because if you have so many components you can lose control with extreme ease with the abstract assembly of the syscos.
with the advantage that pro-e/cree, allows to insert n constraints, which allows to control multiple situations simultaneously.

the problem of the number "click" I find it a "no problem" when you do not notice a failure to assembly and you arrive in prototyping (or worse in production).

the failure of the assemblies together, must never be seen as a break of drains of the cad, but indeed a real warning.

I agree that there are situations that almost oblige to use the syscos, but still today, I am a minority (carrozzerie, design elements, very extensive assemblies that come to mind).

 

[calacc]

to not lose control just check out any changes that you make together according to me. I usually use to make these assemblies "abstract" with sisco when the geometry of the component is not definitive but is in the modeling phase. at first you do not have all the maths of the piece but only some sketches on the plane, curves etc...

 

[320i S]

yes but so go to "manual" with checks that instead should do the cad automatically. .
as well I initially insert using also the sisco, but later to advanced modeling, I stand with specific constraints.

 

[calacc]

as well I initially insert using also the sisco, but later to advanced modeling, I stand with specific constraints.

This can be a method.

the "manual" verification so to speak is always a useful thing to me because you notice the effect that has the modification on the assembly and then why can provide ideas on the improvement of the product.