variante per family table

[D4n13l]

Hello everyone
I have started working in a company for about 2 months and known that they often use family tables for complex axes, and not only for vines (which should be done).
do you know how to overcome the problem with creo instead of using family tables?
the problem is also what if the starting code is in a folder also others who may not be in there go to the generic file folder.

 

[DANI-3D]

Bye-bye.
And yet another dilemma, these unknown. to begin with an eye here:http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/threads/family-table-oppure-rappresentazioni-semplificate.47745/or do a wider research, the subject has been treated several times, and the conclusion is always the same, the fts are an indispensable and very powerful tool, but it must be taken at small doses, very suitable for managing commercials, simple pieces where vary few odds, very small assemblies. going beyond is extremely risky, I speak for personal experience, for many reasons of which some have great consequences:
- Huge regeneration times are extended
- if during assembly you're bound to a particular part that then suppresses through ft both disappear, even if the second you'd like to see. same thing happens with references.
- you can hardly open at the same time two or more machines managed with ft at the same time to make comparisons.
- over the months the changes are increasingly complicated and dangerous.

 

[D4n13l]

thank you so much for the answer, the problem is not me that I already understood that the family tables are not good for the assemblies, but it is to make it understand here in the company that they have to be used only for the commercial components. . I don't know what happens in that case.
I believe that every machine must have its own distinct code and design, and not be grouped into a family table, it is convenient that if you change in table the generic change all the details connected to it, but there is no better way to do it in creo? This is what I ask

 

[DANI-3D]

.... but there is no better way to do it in creo? quotas)

the only valid method is how the ancients did, and how our pronipots, a set and a code for each project, trying to create groups for the common parts to be recalled at will in the various projects. once you make the first machine, to do the next, I use the rename method in session to duplicate the project.

 

[paolopavani76]

thank you so much for the answer, the problem is not me that I already understood that the family tables are not good for the assemblies, but it is to make it understand here in the company that they have to be used only for the commercial components. . I don't know what happens in that case.
I believe that every machine must have its own distinct code and design, and not be grouped into a family table, it is convenient that if you change in table the generic change all the details connected to it, but there is no better way to do it in creo? This is what I ask

hi, by experience, as a customer uses a lot of family tables, I can tell you that if you use them in a certain way they are not so terrible. I explain, most of the axioms we manage has a unique code, a machine a design, ok, then there are various subaxioms that still at the first level maintain their uniqueness, "going" of level we gather that component that can be managed by family table, we still talk of assemblies that can contain also several components but still manageable, go beyond as says dani-3d is very not recommended! !

 

[320i S]

there are many strategies to avoid using the family tables of complex assemblies and maintain a good exploitability.
basic if the database is large and there is no pdm to govern everything, the use of family table assemblies with over 20-30 components is to be excluded a priori, for the reasons mentioned above by forum colleagues.
However also with a plm, assiemi with larger components, it is to be weighted well, to limit data traffic and revisions.

 

[AndreaTerzi]

hi, by experience, as a customer uses a lot of family tables, I can tell you that if you use them in a certain way they are not so terrible. I explain, most of the axioms we manage has a unique code, a machine a design, ok, then there are various subaxioms that still at the first level maintain their uniqueness, "going" of level we gather that component that can be managed by family table, we still talk of assemblies that can contain also several components but still manageable, go beyond as says dani-3d is very not recommended! !

I agree .. the family tables are excellent tools of creo both in the parts and in the assemblies depends on how they are used and what objective you have.