Any way to "idiot-proof" display states? 4

[-ENTROPY-]

Howdy all,

So in my situation I have a series of parts in an assembly that can be described using the configuration and display states shown below:
[ul]
[li]Configuration #1 - CASTING[/li]
[li]- - Default display state[/li]
[li]Configuration #2 - MACHINING[/li]
[li]- - Default display state showing only the machining that has been done to the casting[/li]
[li]- - RAL Paint spec #1[/li]
[li]- - RAL Paint spec #2[/li]
[li]- - RAL Paint spec #3[/li]
[li]- - etc..[/li]
[/ul]
Now the problem that I can see occurring in the future once I have more "cooks in the kitchen" is that someone is going to accidentally apply a new paint spec to these parts and overwrite all the set up display states.

So I guess I have two questions:
(1) Has anyone found a better method than this to have control of different appearances of display states?
(2) Has anyone found a way to "lock" display states so we don't have the potential of overwriting all display states when someone adds another color into these parts?

We do use PDM, if that helps at all.

Thanks!

 

[Updraft]

Instead of using different configurations for the casting and machined parts you should look into Insert Part. This would take the casting (it is a separate part anyway) and leave it as a separate part file, but the machined version would reference it as if it were a dumb solid. This is more representative of the real world, plus it inherently protects the casting from changes done by someone intending to affect the machining only.

As far as display state control goes, I don't often use them in my work, but I have seen people use an assembly of only one part where it is colored/painted in that assembly. They did this a couple of different ways: One is to have a separate assembly for each color as in Part-red.sldasm and Part-Green.sldasm, and another where they had different configurations controlling the different colors.

I hope this helps.

- - -Updraft

 

[-ENTROPY-]

Appreciate the input! You make a good point about separating the casting from the machining parts. I'll get with the guys here and see what they think.

 

[APPENG]

That's exactly what I do. With castings, forgings or sheet metal parts that i need to make tools for. I insert them into a part then proceed to model the machined features in the new part. This way anything that gets done does not go backwards to the original model. But the display states are not available from the base part so the display states would need to be added to the "machined" part file. I just finished a forging in this manner, and for this I created the first model of just the raw forging. Then I saved that part and inserted it into a newly created part file, Then began cutting away the material that needs to be machined off.

Regards,
Jon

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Nothing can be made idiot-proof. Whnever you get close, a bigger idiot comes along.