Insert Geometry

Ok.

So I want to use one part as the base of another. What I have been
doing is creating an assembly and doing the "merge/inheritance" thing.

Here's the problem. I want to get rid of the assembly that I created
it in. I don't want to carry the overhead. So if I do delete it Pro/
e gripes about not finding it.

Is there a better way to do this?

 

You could redefine the merge feature and uncheck the "dependant" box.
I'm not game to do it myself, but I guess it will copy the features of
your base part into your new part. Then your new part is stand-alone.

Otherwise there's no way around it. After all ProE is parametric, so
where would the part get the base information from except from the
other part via the assembly?

 

You really don't need a assembly to do this.. the easiest way is the
direct way...
Insert/Shared Data/... and use one of the options... Copy Geometry...
or Shrinkwrap... or Merge...

..

 

You really don't need a assembly to do this.. the easiest way is the
direct way...
Insert/Shared Data/... and use one of the options... Copy Geometry...
or Shrinkwrap... or Merge...

...

The interesting thing about all these methods, including 'Edit>Component Operations>Merge', is that they're not much different from each other. They all
* require some method of geometry placement
* provide for the resulting geometry being dependent or independent
* produce featureless, effectively non-parametric geometry, like a bunch of solidified surfaces

They're all useful but limited in the same ways. Have you thought about UDFs? These can emcompass any number of features up to all the features in a model. The toughest thing is figuring out common references and that may be as simple as a common coordinate system which is needed for copy geoms anyway. But the results are superior, in my mind.

David Janes

 

Well,

I need the dependancy so that changes to the first model are updated
in the second. And I can't merge/inheret a part except from an
assembly... unless I'm doing something wrong.

Currently I do this then delete the assembly. The update works, it
just gripes about missing the assembly for placement.

The first part is the casting, the second part is the machining
operations to that casting.

I've never used UDF's nor do I have any clue what they are. Can you
elaborate?

 

I think the way you're doing it (Merge/Inheritance) is the recommended way. Except for deleting the assembly. I don't get what that buys you, besides the obvious trouble.

I guess what I really don't get is how this works in the manufacturing environment. I know they're supposed to represent before and after, rough casting/machined part. But what's the inheritance feature for? Don't you normally make a manufacturing model which is an assembly of the rough and finished part then machine to the design model? Instead of a workpiece, you've got the rough casting model? Seems like I've heard different philosophies on this but it's not a discussion we've had here.

David Janes

 

Well I dug around a bit a found a few things. In the Merge/
inheritance feature you have two options: Set referencing type
Assembly Context or External. So that sounds like what I'm looking
for... ie I want to use the external context instead of an assembly
context...BUT!!! the option is greyed out. Fine great.

Does anybody know how to un-grey out this option? I'm getting a
headache.

As for casting vs maching operations, I haven't heard ANY school of
thought. I'm self taught (with the help of this forum) and this is
the way that makes the most sense to me.

ie. The cast part has it's own partnumber, part file, and drawing for
the creation of the tool and the control dimensions for that process.
The machining operations are performed by a separate vendor, so this
part is ordered by it's unique part number, with its own drawing and
control dimensions.

It makes sense to me to make a casting part file, then merge/inheret
the part into a new file and then add the machining operations. That
way any changes to the cast model will follow into the machined model.

I realize that this would be much easier to use a family table with
the cast as the generic and the machined as an instance. But this
client HATES family tables for some reason and forbids their use.
Ignorant, but those are the rules I have to work with.

 

OK, I see, it does make sense this way: different vendors, different part numbers; machined part a faithful copy of 'as cast' part but with addtional features and staying tied to casting to capture changes. And, with family tables out of the picture, you're down to some kind of dependent copy geom feature.

If you are copying the features of a single part (casting), an assembly is NOT needed. In the new, blank part, you do 'Insert>Shared Data>Merge/Inheritance', open the casting part, pick placement constraints (Default), make sure the Dependent box is checked, toggle Inheritance and Done. Nothing could be simpler, no assembly reqired.

David Janes

 

Well, as Gluteous mentioned, I don't have AAX so I'm pretty much
screwed.

[begin rant]
Let me start by saying that I have come to appreciate Pro/e in a way I
never thought I would. I was a SolidWorks guy for ~12 years before I
got forced into Pro/e.
My BIGGEST complaint is that the VAR's LIE when they are trying to
sell you a license of Pro/e.
No you CANNOT get an equivilant program for the same cost. SolidWorks
with all the goodies and add-ons will run you $8-9k. To get an
equivilant package with Pro/e, you have to spend upwards of $20k.
They try to sell you the "Advantage" package of Pro/e for $8-9k and
say it's the same, but it's missing allll the goodies.

Why would I buy a yugo when I can get a Lexus for the same price?

oh yeah, and the graphics suck hard. When 20% of american men are
"color deficient" why wouldn't you incorporate more contrast and color
variation in your display? Gives me a headache staring at the screen
all day.
[end rant]

 

Again, I really don't see what an ASSEMBLY, advanced or otherwise, has to do with this. (Read the post it looks like you're replying to.) BTW, BHA asked if you had AAX but didn't even suggest what you might need it for. And then you jump to the conclusion, just by his asking the question, that you're "screwed". I thought I was following this conversation pretty well, but it looks like I'm completely lost.

David Janes

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

I "jumped" to this comclusion by doing exactly what you suggested. I
dug through a lot of previous posts in this forum. I don't have a
link to the exact post, but it was decided that "Inheritance" features
are not available with the Advantage package. They spent a lot of
time comparing license files and available options.

When Pro/e went from 2001 to Wildfire, many of these features were
taken out of the base package. You have to buy the AAX module to get
them.

I believe this includes: Inheritance, skeleton models, publish
geometry, ...power windows, power locks, power steering, seatbelts,
etc...

I "cheat" the loss of External Inheritance by creating a Merge feature
in an assembly. Then I just toss the assembly. Pro/e gripes about
missing the assm file, but it still works.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

I "jumped" to this comclusion by doing exactly what you suggested. I
dug through a lot of previous posts in this forum. I don't have a
link to the exact post, but it was decided that "Inheritance" features
are not available with the Advantage package. They spent a lot of
time comparing license files and available options.

When Pro/e went from 2001 to Wildfire, many of these features were
taken out of the base package. You have to buy the AAX module to get
them.

I believe this includes: Inheritance, skeleton models, publish
geometry, ...power windows, power locks, power steering, sun roof,
etc...

I "cheat" the loss of External Inheritance by creating a Merge feature
in an assembly. Then I just toss the assembly. Pro/e gripes about
missing the assm file, but it still works.

_____________
Oh, now I get the rant... and the rest of it. I guess I'm just spoiled, having never had to work with the stripped down version. I certainly didn't realize that AAX includes all that functionality. The only thing I was sure that you needed it for was saved explode views. But it's especially irritating that it's so hard to find out exactly what functionality you DO get with a particular module.

David Janes

 

- another reason still not to jump on the train into the wildfire ;-)
my 2001 is 2005, build 030 actually. That´s not too old to work with.

Walther

 

Thats a big issue I have with the Help files. You go to look into how
to do something... you go and try it, and it doesn't work. Then you
spend two days fu%*&ing with it only to find out.... YOU CAN'T.

If they prefaced the Help topic with "you can only do this with [such-
n-such] package" it would save me a whole lot of time.

As a private contractor, I have to own my own licenses for SolidWorks
and Pro/e. Well, when you're doing it yourself, you try to keep
things as cheap as possible. Had I know how limited the Advantage
package was, I would have budgeted differently to accomodate a better
package.

The yearly maintinence packages for both of these programs are
crippling. Especially when you are bidding against a bunch of
"moonlighters" who don't have to pay for the software or hardware out
of their own pockets.