Massive Unigraphics assy into ProE part

[daveykbelgium]

I have now worked for two large organisations that have severe problems using massive Unigraphics assemblies inside Pro/ENGINEER.

Third-parties are the design responsibles for modules used within our systems, and they use some Unigraphics.

We need to include the geometry of their modules in our systems, but it needs to be manageable (speed/display), and solid. Solid geometry is required to allow us to do interference checking and generate cross-sections.

I can successfully import a Unigraphics assembly into a Pro/ENGINEER assembly, the resulting ProE assembly being completely solid.

Why don’t I use this within our system? Because if I put the assembly in our Pro/INTRALINK database, we would have literally hundreds of parts with a “manifold blah, blah” reference submitted into our database.

I can’t foresee that I can suppress parts in my ProE assembly during the submission, as designers will need to see parts when an assembly is retrieved. Asking them to resume parts every time they use assemblies isn’t workable.

Thus I wanted to “squash” my Pro/ENGINEER assembly into a Pro/ENGINEER part, and submit this part into the database.

I have performed this operation successfully, but it isn’t a reliable way to work. Perhaps 8 times in 10 the process doesn’t work and gives me a surface model instead.

I’m sure that I will get suggestions about making simplified reps of my ProE assembly, but I don’t want to get involved in deciding what I must include and exclude. I say this because the modules we are importing contain PCBs with many components, and we can’t request our suppliers to make special models to aid this issue.

I have tried exporting flat assemblies from my ProE assembly, in STEP, IGES and Parasolid format, but I keep getting surface models when I import the file into a Pro/ENGINEER part.

My suspicion is that the corruption is created through interferences in the imported assembly – things such as screw threads, wires, legs of connectors.

I am going to do some tests where I break out groups of components from my ProE assembly, and afterwards merge them into my ProE part. I would propose hardware as one group, electrics/electronics, and “the rest”.

Does anybody use a methodology that could solve my problem?

Does anybody have experience with third-party translators?

Thanks in advance

Dave

 

[Hora]

I think we all had these experiences. You will need to close the surfaces.

You will not find a magic method to automatic close tsome tiny surfaces. You can try using diiferent accuracy.

You can call also some "specialized" companies who will translate them for you. It will cost, but no more headaches.

-Hora

 

[looslib]

What format is the data in when you import it into Pro/E? STEP, IGES, Parasolid, UG native?

Each of these methods produces diffferent results when imported into Pro/E. Also, some of these can be imported as both part and assembly files.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications

 

[daveykbelgium]

It is a zipped STEP file.

I have just arrived and haven't had a chance to speak to the supplier about trying different configurations.

I'd still like to try less hardware and less PCBs to at least try and get the large bespoke parts to translate properly.

In the past I have found inporting Parasolids is a more robust process. Parasolids is a later developent than STEP I think, and hence more robust and problem free???

Cheers

Dave

 

[looslib]

We had problems with Parasolid imports on some simple parts into Pro/E while STEP would come through fine.
The surface data may be surfaces in UG, so check that with the supplier.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
L-3 Communications