use public geometry to copy geometry

[Therapy?]

good day and good year

as explained in another post are recently passed by wf2 to creo2 and I did a course for the update

are to ask you help for the correct use of copy geometry having to disposition also the public command geometry (licenza aax)
so far I have always used the copy geometry "traditional" by activating a part in mode together and copying the geometry (usually a surface) that interests me from another - this in quite complex models involves a heavy regeneration to every new feature that I add since the regeneration "passes" from the aid and regenerates everything
if I didn't understand badly with the public geometry command I should be able to do the same without weighing down the regeneration but the instructor (that on this topic didn't seem very hard) gave me only the explanation that practically is the same as I did before but there is the public command geometry that I had not before

I also have a problem: when I cover a geometry on one side I need the "freeze" geometry at that point i.e. if I subsequently add a hole or a rounding to the copied surface I do not want it to be returned to the destination part where I could create small cases (I hope to be decently explained) and this according to the instructor with the public geometry I can not do it. . .

 

[Ermes Martini]

the topic is long enough to deal with.
first of all the Publish Geometry command creates a feature that contains published elements such as plane surfaces axes etc. then who publishes the geometry takes care of dividing the various areas of project that will then be recovered with the copy geometry (progettazine top down).
copy geometry can copy geometries published in one shot and can be deactivated, in other words when you copy a geometry with the copy geometry published or unpublished you can activate the fact that if you change the original geometry the copy is not updated.
the published geometry is a feature that you can then move to the tree and then if you add feature after publication the publication is not affected.
copy geometry and public geometry should not be seen as commands, but should be integrated into a working method, "top down design" for more info write-.
I don't often use this portal and I don't know how to use it well I have to organize myself.

Hello ermes

 

[Therapy?]

thanks to the answer

Unfortunately we have dealt with the subject only in the last minutes of the course while probably it would be served at least half an extra day to devote to it
Moreover in the last few months I have been very busy and I have not even had time to make some evidence that maybe it would help me better understand

However in my case the necessity is not to divide the various areas of project but to use the references of one part to build/modify another and maintain the association (I knew that you can disable but I do not gamble because the possibility of modification there is also to finished and industrialized project...) - work on plastic components that are assembled with each other -

all this already I do with copy geometry the problem is that being components with many features every time I add one it regenerates all the features of the individual components and the assemblies; if I did not mistaken I read on this forum the advice to use the public geometry to remedy this

I hope to find some time on the return from the holidays to make some evidence

Thanks again

 

[Ermes Martini]

logic also applies to plastic parts.
a technique is to create a part of style with or without isdx of the model and to create featres of public geometry of the parts that make up the project (right side, left side, cover and bottom etc., depends on the model)
Later it is possible to copy the feature published in the model with the copy geometry on the part to be industrialized, giving thickness to the surfaces and adding the later features. you can continue to create all the other parts that make up the model.
In this way there is no support aid, and it is also possible to activate and destitute the fleg related to the association with the style model.
Alternatively you can create a set where you will first assemble the style model and together creating or assembling new parts you can create to the whole of each of them the relative features copy geometry this time not external, at the end you will have the already created axieme.
this is only an example there are multiple methodological variants with skeleton or without layout or notebook or using a sheet of excels for dimensional control etc.
do some tests and find the best method according to the product you are planning.

Hello ermes

 

[Therapy?]

Alternatively you can create a set where you will first assemble the style model and together creating or assembling new parts you can create to the whole of each of them the relative features copy geometry this time not external, at the end you will have the already created axieme.

Here is the method I use now... I would like to understand if there are advantages of using public geometry or is equivalent

 

[Ermes Martini]

working together does not preclude the creation of published geometries.
using public geometry allows you to create a public geometry that contains the geometric elements that will then be copied with the copy public geometry the advantage is that by changing the published geometry, all the parts that used this published geometry will be automatically updated, otherwise without the public geometry but only with the copy geometry you should enter each of the parts and redefine the geometry copy then a longer job and with the risk of forgetting something.

 

[Beth]

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.

 

[calacc]

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?

in top-down (skeleton towards parts) I would say yes but in bottom-up (parts towards skeleton) I would say no. does not depend on that circular references with which quarrels... There's something else safe.

 

[Beth]

Hi calacc,

Why not? if copy references from the bottom use them in the skeleton and the children of these references you break them and reuse them in later parts
It's very likely to have a loop.
at least that in the skeleton make independent the copied references.

 

[DANI-3D]

... my work requires a design logic sometimes "case" by copying references to the right and missing ...

Hi.

eye is not the best system to organize a project. especially when the business grows, or you take a job after a few months it becomes difficult to make changes.
that the design is top down or botton up tries to concentrate most references in a few rows, using sheleters, sketches, reference odds etc.

 

[calacc]

Why not? If you copy references from the bottom you use them in the skeleton and the children of these references you humiliate them and reuse them in later parts it is very likely to have a loop. at least that in the skeleton you make independent the copied references.

but you do not have to use your children as references to make other parts! That's why I said it's better to leave them dependent, because they only need visual control. the geometry that publishes from the skeleton to the parts must remain as references circumscribed to the skeleton. so that a skeleton functions and is done well must live of own life. I to see if I did well I take all the copy-geometry of the skeleton and try to suppress them one by one. if they are suppressed individually (without wearing behind other features) then it means I worked well.

 

[Beth]

hi, I was extreme you were right but it was just to measure with you the flexibility of the system.
the project must have total control always.

for this reason in my work having all "non-independent" dependencies is important to have complete regenerations
circular references allowing.

only in the skeleton I make them independent but I know that they are only there and I will go to rander them dependent when I have to change something that interests them but immediately after they return independent.

All the rest must be dependent, it is the only logical way I know.

 

[Beth]

but you do not have to use your children as references to make other parts! That's why I said it's better to leave them dependent, because they only need visual control. the geometry that publishes from the skeleton to the parts must remain as references circumscribed to the skeleton. so that a skeleton functions and is done well must live of own life. I to see if I did well I take all the copy-geometry of the skeleton and try to suppress them one by one. if they are suppressed individually (without wearing behind other features) then it means I worked well.

You say right things, but you've never had to copy a surface, a surface edge or something in a skeleton.
and be compelled to win over the sketch the bones that you will publish?.
It's risky to get rid of her, don't you think?

 

[DANI-3D]

hi, I was extreme you were right but it was just to measure with you the flexibility of the system.
the project must have total control always.

for this reason in my work having all "non-independent" dependencies is important to have complete regenerations
circular references allowing.

only in the skeleton I make them independent but I know that they are only there and I will go to rander them dependent when I have to change something that interests them but immediately after they return independent.

All the rest must be dependent, it is the only logical way I know.

the system is extremely flexible, not there the problem, if you want to extremize the use of references first you need a good management connected to the cad. because if for example you move a hole or change a feature, you just need a regen and you have the updated project, but you have to know exactly what and how many details you have updated to distribute the new designs and the new distinct. doing it by hand is very difficult, risk having all the updated files on your computer, but around there are the old documents passed.

 

[calacc]

calacc says right things, but you never happened to copy a surface, a surface edge or something in a skeleton?

I certainly did.

...ed to be obliged to bind us over the bone sketch you'll publish?

In fact, this is the point! I by choice avoided to attack me right there (just because I'm not obliged and it is in my opinion incorrect because of circular references). rather I create more references in the skeleton but what design I hold it detached from the external geometry copy.

It's risky to get rid of her, don't you think?

I prefer to risk here!
If I have to make some changes, it always concerns us... then there are changes and changes. for example if small changes are required to the details that do not upset the design purpose I do it directly without passing through the skeleton. also because to meet the requirements of production there are several measures that come out.
if instead it is a change that has impact on the design purpose depends... If I can get out of this one without going through the skeleton. otherwise rename in session of the skeleton, new skeleton and new life! but here we are talking about two projects in effect.

 

[Beth]

I have often thought about your method.
in a few words when you create bone sketches use copy geometry references then when you get out of the sketch you delete them by turning the bond into weak odds.
but calaac I semre feared to lose in precision but surely simplificherebebro the addictions.

and as far as copy geometry is concerned, let's forget the skeleton, use some particular method to avoid loops.

thanks in advance

 

[calacc]

in a few words when you create bone sketches use copy geometry references then when you get out of the sketch you delete them by turning the bond into weak odds

Yes, exactly this is the road I follow. Maybe I try to do a little bit of order when I delete copy geometry references by adding geometric constraints or quotating the sketch in a smarter way etc...

but calaac I have semre feared to lose in precision but surely simplificherebebro the dependencies

I have not grasped what you mean by lose precision since sketches remain geometrically equivalent even by eliminating references. . .

and as for copy geometry aside, let's forget the skeleton, use some particular method to avoid loops

Yes, I use the same system I described before, nothing changes. then to see if I did well I take the copy geometry and do to delete it (or suppress it). if he goes down only he means that it's all right, if instead he takes behind other features I go to see the references because there must be something attached.

 

[Beth]

I have not grasped what you mean by lose precision since sketches remain geometrically equivalent even by eliminating references. . .

if I do not issue the elimination of references and release in sketch causes the creation of weak odds on other references like default plans.

Yes, I use the same system I described before, nothing changes. then to see if I did well I take the copy geometry and do to delete it (or suppress it). if he goes down only he means that it's all right, if instead he takes behind other features I go to see the references because there must be something attached.

I didn't think it was viable for the same reason that was mentioned above, I would think that this way it gets lost a lot in association between the parties.... .

 

[calacc]

if I don't delete references and release in sketch results in creating weak odds on other references like default plans

so just, as I told you before, I try to give a nice adjustment to the sketch by adding geometric constraints and listing the sketch appropriately; Maybe finalized at the table of the piece.

I didn't think it was viable for the same reason mentioned above, I would think that this way you get lost a lot in association between the parties....

yes it can certainly be viable in the same way. I think it is preferable as a working method to benefit from greater robustness of the project and better accessibility to the modification of the parts.

 

[Beth]

I hope...
Right?