Assembly

[1oldcaduser]

How do I create an assembly which contains holes which are created at the assmbly stage. I want to do this without affecting the original single parts which make up the assembly. I know that I can 'paste with link' single parts but how do I make that work with a Sub_assembly

 

[catiajim]

You will need to create some "bogus" intermediate parts. Copy/Paste as result with link from your original parts to these bogus parts, add your holes (or subtract them, rather), and then feed this bogus part into the assembly.

Kind of a pain, but that's the only way that CATIA V5 can do this.

 

[DBezaire]

if you have a product structure --
Product A
Product B
CATPart A
CATPart B
Product C


Double pick on Product A
Select Product B --> Copy
Select Product C --> Paste Special --> Break Link

Regards,
Derek

 

[Cosmi]

Hy,I want to ask you if is somebody hwo knows how I can solve this problem:
I made into product five symetries parts. I bring some parts in product and I constraints them (48 parts) whit the symetries parts described before. While I chage the geometry of the initial five parts. After update command the symetries position was changed.
Is posible to be a software problem or the contraints can modify the symetries?

 

[scaleman75]

Has this been issue ever been resolved with Dassault, I know that at the assembly level if you modify any of the parts for an machining operation it then effects the piece part level as well. I am working on R14 SP6 and it is still an issue. We have tried DBezaire solution but it still effects the original catparts. Again the issue is when you are doing machining at the assembly level you only want the CATProduct to be effected not the original CATParts. We have tried using the dummy parts for machining and that is a temporary fix, and we also tried using the links again a band-aid for this solution. Using SmartTeam or any other PDM this becomes a will headache. I know other CAD systems are capable of machining at the assembly level and keeping it there only, I am hoping Dassault is reallizing that this is a big issue. Has anyone else come up with a better solution than dummy parts or links? Thanks for any feedback to this issue.

regards
scaleman

 

[Akesson]

There is now good solution (that I know of) to this issue. You can work with different representation etc but none of the work-arounds is good enough (in my opinion).

I'm still waiting for a solution not another work-around from DS.

 

[jackk]

Cosmi and Scaleman:

What color are the gears in front of the parts in your assemblies?

 

[scaleman75]

I have tried yellow and green for hybrid and non-hybrid parts. Most typically I am in the hybrid mode though. The instance gear is yellow and there looks like a paper behind the gear. Above at the product level the gear is blue and yellow with a red swirly arrow. I don't know if that will help you out or not, if not I can submit a screen grab. Though typically, the hybrid and non-hybrid parts give us the same issues. Thanks for your responses.

scaleman

 

[jackk]

Sorry - not the color of the partbody gears.

What color are the gears on the 5 symmetried parts that are in your assembly? Yellow, Green, or Brown?

I suspect you're designing your parts contextually, which could result in the symmetry behavior you're getting.

 

[DBezaire]

Scaleman75 - In assembly design - the colour of the gears of the CATParts - this is what Jackk is referring to. I have yet to have consistant results from Assembly design symmetry. Even with a simple example.

Derek

 

[scaleman75]

sorry jackk, I thought you were talking to me, this question relates to Cosmi and the gears. Cosmi question relates to constraints, while the original question relates to machining at the assembly level.

You are asking Cosmi,

"What color are the gears on the 5 symmetried parts that are in your assembly? Yellow, Green, or Brown?

I suspect you're designing your parts contextually, which could result in the symmetry behavior you're getting."

 

[jackk]

This thread has taken a few tangencies off the original subject, and I apologize for mixing up the author with the question.

You're right Scaleman - I was responding to Cosmi's comments on symmetrical parts in assemblies.