daveykbelgium
Mechanical
- Mar 12, 2005
- 73
I have a couple of questions regarding layouts and their relationship to parts both within Pro/ENGINEER and Pro/INTRALINK.
I have already looked on the PTC database, but can’t find an appropriate entry.
We are starting the clean-sheet design of a new printer. The complete product uses one very large 5-page layout. The layout is kept in a protected folder in Pro/INTRALINK accessible only by me, acting as the system architect.
If a designer wants to detail a simple part with dependency to the layout, i.e. a roller, they would need to declare the layout to their new part file. They would then create a relationship between the appropriate dimension and the layout. When they submit the part back to the database, the submission will also try to include the layout, but this would create a conflict because of write-access to the folder where the layout is kept.
The layout can be deleted from the workspace without corrupting the submission, so my question is whether this is harmful to the relationship of the two files?
When I worked at this company in the past – perhaps four years ago – towards the end of the project, our part and assembly files seem to lose their ability to auto-assemble, and my suspicion was that it might have been caused through actions such as the one I document above. Obviously at that time we were probably working with Pro/ENGINEER v19 and a cut of Pro/PDM.
To prove my theory, I retrieved the layout, created a new part file, declared the layout to the part, declared the name of the part’s coordinate system to one in the layout, and finally, made one dimension dependent through a relation. I saved the part file, and in my workspace saw that the layout had become modified. I deleted the layout and submitted the part into the database.
When I retrieved the part from the database, I looked what declarations were present. Although the part recognises that there is a declaration to the layout, the declaration of the coordinate system and the dimension are not listed – this is not normal. Now I cannot auto-assemble the part, yet when I modified the layout parameter, the part regenerated to the new layout value.
Working with a large group of designers, I don’t want the layout to be write-access – inevitably, a designer will make a feasibility study and modify a parameter, and accidentally submit the layout back into the database.
This aside, my feeling is that at the beginning of our project, there would be periods when we had submission problems with the layout, as too many designers would make declarations and submit the layout to the database. Problems are very likely to occur because a colleague will also have retrieved the layout – perhaps at an even earlier point in time – and made a faster submission. The slower designer would have to do his work again.
My present suggestion is to break away from one huge layout, and make one layout per sub-assembly – these smaller layouts would contain the coordinate system names for auto-assembly, plus parameters. I do this because the layouts would almost exclusively only be used by one designer, and even if it were used by two, the challenge of coordination would be far easier to control.
Parts and layouts can be submitted simultaneously.
As system architect, I still do not want to give open access of parameter values, so I would suggest all numerical values are held in a write-protected system layout. An example would simply be; “value01”, with a numerical value of say 157.00mm. In a table, text would refer to “Outside diameter of fuser roller” - not as “value01” – with the appropriate value.
The system layout would contain parameters for sub-module position parameters (relative to one another), and door/drawer opening angles and dimensions - these are only used in the highest-level assemblies, and controlled by myself, thus no potential submission problems.
In the sub-assembly layout I would define parameters, but the numerical values would come from the system layout using a relation, i.e. drum_dia=value01. In a table would appear the parameter name, a description, and a numerical value. I would also create some other relationships in these layouts using the parameter values. These relationships are my only concern with regard to security, as they could be edited by designers. This however would have to be performed as a deliberate act – an accident would give an instant error, stating that the parameter name was not recognised.
This is a lot of extra work, and inefficient.
Are there any recognised ways to work-around this problem?
I have already looked on the PTC database, but can’t find an appropriate entry.
We are starting the clean-sheet design of a new printer. The complete product uses one very large 5-page layout. The layout is kept in a protected folder in Pro/INTRALINK accessible only by me, acting as the system architect.
If a designer wants to detail a simple part with dependency to the layout, i.e. a roller, they would need to declare the layout to their new part file. They would then create a relationship between the appropriate dimension and the layout. When they submit the part back to the database, the submission will also try to include the layout, but this would create a conflict because of write-access to the folder where the layout is kept.
The layout can be deleted from the workspace without corrupting the submission, so my question is whether this is harmful to the relationship of the two files?
When I worked at this company in the past – perhaps four years ago – towards the end of the project, our part and assembly files seem to lose their ability to auto-assemble, and my suspicion was that it might have been caused through actions such as the one I document above. Obviously at that time we were probably working with Pro/ENGINEER v19 and a cut of Pro/PDM.
To prove my theory, I retrieved the layout, created a new part file, declared the layout to the part, declared the name of the part’s coordinate system to one in the layout, and finally, made one dimension dependent through a relation. I saved the part file, and in my workspace saw that the layout had become modified. I deleted the layout and submitted the part into the database.
When I retrieved the part from the database, I looked what declarations were present. Although the part recognises that there is a declaration to the layout, the declaration of the coordinate system and the dimension are not listed – this is not normal. Now I cannot auto-assemble the part, yet when I modified the layout parameter, the part regenerated to the new layout value.
Working with a large group of designers, I don’t want the layout to be write-access – inevitably, a designer will make a feasibility study and modify a parameter, and accidentally submit the layout back into the database.
This aside, my feeling is that at the beginning of our project, there would be periods when we had submission problems with the layout, as too many designers would make declarations and submit the layout to the database. Problems are very likely to occur because a colleague will also have retrieved the layout – perhaps at an even earlier point in time – and made a faster submission. The slower designer would have to do his work again.
My present suggestion is to break away from one huge layout, and make one layout per sub-assembly – these smaller layouts would contain the coordinate system names for auto-assembly, plus parameters. I do this because the layouts would almost exclusively only be used by one designer, and even if it were used by two, the challenge of coordination would be far easier to control.
Parts and layouts can be submitted simultaneously.
As system architect, I still do not want to give open access of parameter values, so I would suggest all numerical values are held in a write-protected system layout. An example would simply be; “value01”, with a numerical value of say 157.00mm. In a table, text would refer to “Outside diameter of fuser roller” - not as “value01” – with the appropriate value.
The system layout would contain parameters for sub-module position parameters (relative to one another), and door/drawer opening angles and dimensions - these are only used in the highest-level assemblies, and controlled by myself, thus no potential submission problems.
In the sub-assembly layout I would define parameters, but the numerical values would come from the system layout using a relation, i.e. drum_dia=value01. In a table would appear the parameter name, a description, and a numerical value. I would also create some other relationships in these layouts using the parameter values. These relationships are my only concern with regard to security, as they could be edited by designers. This however would have to be performed as a deliberate act – an accident would give an instant error, stating that the parameter name was not recognised.
This is a lot of extra work, and inefficient.
Are there any recognised ways to work-around this problem?