How to prevent parent feature updates.

[NXerGeneration]

Basically I'm currently working on a large model with a lot of complex features. The moment I update a child feature NX updates all of its upper level parent features. Its really annoying and I don't see why NX has this functionality. But anyways any insight would be much appreciated. I am running NX4 here.

 

[Xwheelguy]

On the Edit Feature toolbar, there is an icon called Delayed Update after Edit. Toggle that ON.

When finished with edits, toggle it OFF so the model will update. It will still go back to the parent features and update them.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com

Some people are like slinkies....they don't really have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

 

[NXerGeneration]

Thanks for your quick reply. I'm aware of the delayed update option but this is not what I'm looking for.

Below is copy of part of my Model History listing shown in Time Stamp order.

Model History
Thicken Sheet (32) 1
Blend (33) 1
Blend (34) 1
Blend (35) 1
Block (36) 50
Point (37) 50
Draft (38) 50
Line (39) 50
Distance Measurement (40)
Block (41) 50
Point (42) 50
Draft (43) 50
Line (44) 50


If I update for example Line (44) feature the NX opts to update all of the features from Blend (33) event though the Line (44) feature is only indirectly related to (Blend (33)...

Thanks
Pawel...

 

[JohnRBaker]

I would guess that what you're talking about is the first time you open a part file and perform an edit, correct? If you were then to edit Line(44) a second time the parents features would NOT update, correct? That's becasue until you have performed at least one complete update in the new session, we can't just update the feature edited (and any children of course).

However, starting in NX 5, we have improved this somewhat by adding a Save Option where you can ask that additional update date be saved with the part file so that the next time you open it and edit a feature that we will not always have to perform a complete update as part of the first edit in a session.

Note that the reason that this is an OPTION and not just standard behavior is that with this option set ON, your part files will take up more space on the disk and will take longer to open and save so this is fine when you're still working on a part on a regular basis, but as soon as you have finished it and it's going to be 'released' and only updated if some future design change is to be made, it would be best to toggle this option OFF and resave the part file so as to use the least amount of space while it's archived.


John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Product Line
SIEMENS PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

 

[NXerGeneration]

Mr. John

Not quite as this NX4 behavior happens every time a feature is edited within the sessions, not the first time into the session. Please refer to the attached image and look for the following.

1 The highlighted features in the part navigator are being highlighted are in a process of being suppressed.

2 If you scroll down the image to the " NX que window" you'll see that the features are being updated all the way from feature (246) That's approx 80 to a 100 features that it updates for a simple suppression. This takes even though this is being run on a fast CAD station.

Hopefully this makes sense.

Luckily I'm almost done with this model and unfortunately my company will not be upgrading to NX5 in near feature.

 

[NXerGeneration]

Here is the proper link to the image. You will have to save it as to your computer fo rhe image to display properly >>>

 

[Xwheelguy]

NXer,

I do not mean any offense when I say this, but it appears from the image that you are using an awfully lot of features for such a simple part. Over 400 features for THAT part???? That, to me, seems a bit on the high side for a feature count, unless every curve you're using is associative (which, you better not being using Associative Curves for profiles...that's a sketcher or smart curve job). I could very well be wrong...wouldn't be the first time.

Try to combine as many things into one feature or step as you can. This will save time when it does update. You're not going to work around the parents updating at times, but you CAN change your workflow (the way you model) so that it is as efficient as possible and works well with the software.

Is there any way to share your part so we could take a look at it and offer some suggestions that might benefit you?

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com

Some people are like slinkies....they don't really have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

 

[hudson888]

Pawel,

While I suspect Tim makes a valid point I look at your part and suspect that certain features are running into or over the edges of others. So I suspect that what you're trying to do is to use sketches, associativity or a combination thereof to maintain those relationships between features such that when the dimensions are edited the model will update and the blends will still run.

As Tim says we could be wrong, for all we know most of what we're looking at could be a styled surface from a sewn and trimmed sheet that we can't see in the feature list, and which might explain a higher than expected feature count.

There is an old principle often quoted in engineering, which in english is abbreviated to KISS, for Keep it Simple Stupid. It means that too many features could mean too many things to go wrong. Thus the reason that you have many problems may be an un-diagnosed conflict between two or more associative features which are refusing to update in the background because some change you have made to a basic dimension via your sketch results in an invalid outcome, meaning geometry that can't be resolved. Sometimes it happens, and the best advice is too keep things simple. Even if that means that you have to ditch some of the complexity in favor of models that need you to manage the updates more manually then maybe you'll be better off doing it that way if it is simpler for you.

Best Regards

Hudson

 

[DavidTolsma]

While agree with the KIS method, It does not mean less features. By combining features just to have less, actually does the exact opposite. I don't know the design criteria for this part to fully understand if there are too many features. A lot of times the customer dictates what surfaces to use, and update those features regular enough to warrant extra work to make the updates easier and faster on the user side.

The question though, even though you think it is not related, it's difficult to answer, I would trust NX on this, that it is related somehow. A shared surface, etc. The only answer is to refactor your part and make it loosly coupled with other features. Sorry programming language, Basically make the features live on their own if a feature fails or goes away.

-Dave

http://plmwiki.com

http://groups.google.com/group/NX_CAX/

 

[hudson888]

Dave,

I agree with what you have to say. Some might quibble. I even liked the software speak analogy. So to use another I often think of modeling in NX as programming the Kernel to build a Solid model, which to some extent has to be "maintainable" for the next guy. Most designers however don't think like software analysts, and many seem to prefer to rebuild the whole thing over debugging the last guys effort. There's nothing however to say that models can't be smart and maintainable at the same time or that one is inherently in conflict with the other. Smart is often more maintainable, and if it isn't then somebody probably just thought it was smart at the time and they were probably wrong.

That said I think we were always on the same page. Specifically I don't go in for combining features just to have less. In our office we avoid combining primitives with boolean operations, (i.e block or extrude, with a unite or subtract), simply because the decoupled model is easier to roll back and analyze/change should the need arise.

I read your comments as perhaps suggesting that I thought otherwise and wanted to correct the perception. Neither would I recommend that simplicity is a goal of itself, or that users refrain from using any but the simplest methods in favor of a lowest common denominator approach to modeling. Not knowing how to use all the available tools to their best effect is to my mind a failure to use the system the best way that you can. But being complex and clever for cleverness sake is counter productive. So you see it is all about "Bang for your Buck".

Regards

Hudson

 

[MSPBenson]

Nxer,

Getting back to the point of the original thread.
I've had this problems a few times too.
Only seems to happen on models that have lots of features in.
A part cleanup has solved a few.
I've had a suspision for a while that it could be down to extract features (even when they are timestamped). I've not yet been able to prove/dissprove this yet.

cheers,


Mark Benson
Aerodynamic Model Designer