Configurations 2

[ksauter]

I have created about 15 configurations of a very simple part (a pine 2 x 4 stud), all but 4 of which are simply different lengths. Four of the configurations have additional cuts (each configuration has its own separate cut). I can create all configurations, one at a time, with no problem. I configure the cuts to apply to only the one configuration that they are for and suppress them for every other configuration. So far no problem. Now I go back and rebuild each configuration individually to make sure everything is proper and works, and each configuration rebuilds correctly. However, the cuts that are suppressed show a rebuild error. Then, when I go to the assembly that uses these parts, it shows that these studs have rebuild errors, even though those cuts are suppressed and the assembly rebuilds correctly. Is there no way to get rid of these warnings, or must I just live with them?

 

[TheTick]

Use a design table to get the configs under better control.

In my opinion, you are beyond the productivity threshold for your configs. You are past the point where you will be wasting more time maintaining the configs than you would if you had separate parts. Some people lke this, though, because it makes them feel clever.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

You should not have to "live with them". They should not be occurring, but they may be due to the way you are creating the cuts.

Can you post the part for review?

 

[JMirisola]

The cuts are probably showing a rebuild error because one of the faces or edges you used to dimension the cut sketch is gone because of the active cut. Try to dimension from a constant entity, like the origin.

Jeff Mirisola, CSWP
Certified DriveWorks AE

http://designsmarter.typepad.com/jeffs_blog

Dell M90, Core2 Duo
4GB RAM
Nvidia 3500M

 

[JMarv]

I've had similar problems with configs occasionally. Instead of just suppressing the cut feature(s) that you don't need, also supress the sketch associated with that feature. This usually solves the problem for me. I would also agree with TheTick about using a design table. I feel its easier to control the suppressed/un-supressed state of multiple features/sketches with a design table.

Joe
SW Office 2006 SP5.1
P4 3.0Ghz 1GB
ATI FireGL X1

 

[pietje]

jeff is probably right. A shortcut would be to suppress the sketch as well, I sometimes use that when i don't feel like tracking the problem in a complex part. But Jeff's method is preferable.
ah, joe beat me to it.

 

[avantibngrant]

Suggest you not use cuts but vary the length of the original extrusion within the design table. Different configurations can then have a differnt part numbers and descriptions within the design table with the length dimension being the only variable. Nothing to suppress, and the surfaces for mating are always the same ones in any configurtation. You can then change configurations as required in an assembly without loosing mates.
Regards

Neil Grant

 

[ksauter]

Thanks for the suggestions. I suppressed the sketches and that fixed the problem. Thank you!

 

[rikonen]

adding a plane at the same level as the sketch and changing the sketch planes to the plane rather than a face takes these issues away as well. Much easier thinking this way up front than doing it all later though. I like the design tables myself as well, though did it this way up to the point I figures out tables.