Datums in draft

[Michel1978]

I've made some changes in an old part (non master modeling, draft and part in 1 file) for which I had to create some datum planes.
The problem is now that these datums turn up in my draft as well. I've no idea how to turn these of in the draft.
Please help!

I use NX5.

 

[hudson888]

Sound like reference sets or layers to me. Can we assume you have separate drawing and model files?

Perhaps start with checking those things and post back if you don't know how to check either of these, or still have no luck!

Best Regards

Hudson

www.jamb.com.au

Nil Desperandum illegitimi non carborundum

 

[MickyV007]

Hello Michel,

in modeling try putting the datums on a different layer as your solid, for ex. layer 15. Use the "Layer settings" button to make them invisible. Then go to drafting (ctrl+shift+d) and go to the "Layer Visible in View" function which is situated under the Format tab or use (Ctrl+Shift+V) shortcut. Then use the "Reset to Global" button. They should disapear.

kind regards,

Michaël

Michaël Verheyen
CAD designer
GTD HID, section Lamps Design & Assembly
PHILIPS INNOVATIVE APPLICATIONS N.V.
Steenweg op Gierle 417
2300 Turnhout
Belgium

 

[Michel1978]

Thanks, it works.
I didn't know about the "Layer Visible in View" function.

I saw currently only layer 1 is visible by default. In the old drawings all layers are visible.

I use NX5.

 

[acciardi]

FWIW, I believe that the trend is going away from putting datums on layers and instead using the 'Reference Set' functionality.

In the part, select Format/Reference Sets and if your system is configured properly, there should be a set called 'Model'. If not you can create one. Edit that reference set and select/add only the solid body, omitting the datums.

Then you use the 'Model' reference set in your drawing.

I currently have hundreds of parts and assemblies created in NX and have never had to use layers.

Ed

 

[hudson888]

acciardi,

If you're going to advise that fine but since you raised the paradox I'll throw in my two cents worth and say that if the datums have been added to assemblies in order to facilitate mating then I would go for the layers option every time. It is a matter of what you hate most using layers at all or having reference sets in assemblies. I guess I hate reference sets in assemblies more than layers.

Because we have a lot of legacy data going back to the era when layers were absolutely necessary to manage your drafting data we have to learn to cope with layers whether we like it or not. Whereas the possibility for undisciplined use of reference sets came along later and has fortunately not been widely tolerated among projects I have worked on.

Best Regards

Hudson

www.jamb.com.au

Nil Desperandum illegitimi non carborundum

 

[phillpd]

I always create a reference set MATE_TO_ASSY to assist in these situations.

Specialty Engineered Automation (SEA)

http://www.sea4ug.com

a UGS Foundation Partner

 

[cowski]

I don't think reference sets will work when the model and drawing are in the same file (refer to original post), unless there is some trick I don't know?

 

[phillpd]

Cowski, you're correct.

In that case, I'd go with Layers and Visible In View.

Specialty Engineered Automation (SEA)

http://www.sea4ug.com

a UGS Foundation Partner

 

[potrero]

Or, what if there could be a way to actually Show and Hide entities inside a model using the components of a Reference Set? That would be perfect in a situation like this. Plus, it'd be a nice way to verify components of Reference Sets without having to first do a Show All. And it'd provide quick ways of visually displaying commonly used sets of data.

 

[hudson888]

potrero,

Interestingly you may not be so far off the mark. I remember that our initial response to reference sets was to create macros to put all the objects from certain layers into defined reference sets. Many sites still employ the same method as part of their standard practice.

Both Layers and Reference sets are indeed types of masks used to filter displayed from hidden geometry. That there are different tools for assemblies and components is probably a good thing though since it gives you that extra level of flexibility.

Technically I don't know if the two can ever be made equivalent in the sense that you describe. I also know that some people avoid using layers. One observation that I would make though is that you can only display one reference set at a time no matter what you do. Therefore in order to create a new reference set, assuming that there is no other filtering method available to you, you'd probably have to turn everything on at once and try to select the entities you require from the mess of objects. It may be okay up to a point for simple parts but would eventually become somewhat unmanageable. So if there was to be change in this area I would like to see us working in selected reference sets and being able to turn on combinations of more than one at a time. In other words more layer like functionality.

Best Regards

Hudson

www.jamb.com.au

Nil Desperandum illegitimi non carborundum

 

[acciardi]

Hudson does raise a good point - the restriction of having to use a single reference set in a drawing is sometimes a pain.

The reason we eschew the use of layers is that we started fresh with NX and have no legacy data to contend with. We were bought out by an I-Deas shop and our site was the guinea pig for NX.

For cases where we absolutely, positively have to show reference geometry (datum targets for example) we add the features to the model, add it to the Model reference set and then use good vew dependant edits to erase them from the views in which they're not needed.

 

[hudson888]

accardi,

I think to some extent you got me slightly askew. My real point was that the restriction of having to use a single layer all the time in modelling would be worse. It may be okay for simple models but after a while you get that frustrating CATIA kind of feeling where there is just too much geometry displayed all at once.

Best Regards

Hudson

www.jamb.com.au

Nil Desperandum illegitimi non carborundum