Instance-level scope in Family Tables

[IDabbleInModeling]

Hello everybody. I ran into a small problem that I can't quite work out.

Say I had a cylinder with a face A as a generic model for a family table. In one instance model I extrude a smaller cylinder out from face A, and in another instance model I cut a square hole into face A.

Is there a way to limit the scope of the instance models so that I can define different datum planes at both the surface of the square hole and the surface of the smaller cylinder with the same name? You know, sort of like "private" datum plane, if you will. Pro/e acts as if i declared it a "public" datum plane, and won't let me use the name twice.

I appreciate you guys' help.

-I Dabble in Modeling
Intern
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ

 

[dgallup]

Create the Datum A based on stable common references (initial 3 datums if possible) and use Datum A to drive your geometry rather than making Datum A a child of geometry. This is part of the basic philosophy of "Horizontal Modeling". If done correctly, all the geometry in a model can be redefined or deleted and the model & assemblies will still "hang together".

 

[IDabbleInModeling]

First of all, I want to say I really appreciate your help. I gave a simple example to see if there was a trivial solution. Here's the problem though. We have an original conical part with a flange like this: <|

We want to test a configuration where the flange is machined off like this: <

The geometry around the apex of the cone isn't exactly a point, and it's complex. Plus, both cones have to be toleranced with GD&T, so there has to be a better way than to create an entirely new model. All the features in the geometric tolerancing are to reference the base surface of the cone - Datum A. Do you see what I'm getting at? Is there any way at all to restrict features to instance level?

Again, thank you for your help.

 

[fighterpilot]

You can add features to your family table and then putt either a Y or N in the column to indicate the instance should show that feature. Remember your parent/child relationships when you do this however. If you turn off a feature in an instance that has children, all the children will turn off as well.


--
Fighter Pilot
Manufacturing Engineer

 

[dgallup]

You're not listening. You can make the datum come before the cone & have Datum A in both instances. You can adjust the cone location relative to the datum. You can make it sing & dance. You can not have two datum A's in the same model.

 

[IDabbleInModeling]

But can you have datum A be in one place in one model and one place in another one? That's what I'm getting at... not necessarily being able to create a new one, but being able to move it, you know?

 

[fighterpilot]

Yes, define datam A from another plane at a distance. Put the distance measurement in your family table. Relate the features relative to datam A as required.

--
Fighter Pilot
Manufacturing Engineer

 

[IDabbleInModeling]

For example, say you have a generic model with datum A 5 inches from the FRONT datum plane. In one instance I want datum A to be 3 inches from FRONT, and in another instance I want datum A to be 7 inches from FRONT. Is that possible? Or is that the same as having two datum planes called A in the same model?

Sorry to come off like I wasn't listening, by the way. I sort of felt like I miscommunicated what I was trying to do, I guess.

 

[fighterpilot]

Yea, it's possible. Do what I said regarding the definition of datam A and the placement of the defining dimension for the datum into the family table. You still have just one Datum A with this technique.

--
Fighter Pilot
Manufacturing Engineer

 

[IDabbleInModeling]

Awesome. Thank you.