part is not appearing when I drag into an ass'y

[swhits]

when I try to drag a component part into my assembly the part does not graphically show up. It does show up in the tree but it is not transparent or in a simplified state. Is there a fix for this problem?

 

[swertel]

Check the occurence properties of the part. Does it state to "not show in next level assembly"?

--Scott

For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376

 

[swhits]

all is well with the occurence properties.

 

[fredericmenage]

Hi,

are you sure your part is solid ? Try right click on the part in the edge bar and click 'Show/Hide component' / 'surfaces'.

Fred

 

[swhits]

well it is a "part copy solid" from a vendor. Would that make a difference?

 

[beachcomber]

swhits,
If it's a conversion from a vendor then there's good chance the surfaces in the model failed to stitch into a solid. It's a common problem, often caused by different modelling tolerances between systems, and the different ways of defining surface boundaries.
In the Part file go Tools>Options>View and check the box labelled 'Use Shading on Constructions'.
Then in your assembly Tools>Options>View and check the box labelled 'Display Inter-Part Copies as Construction'.
See if that makes any difference.

bc

 

[swhits]

that still did not fix the problem. I usually do not use vendor parts. I have found an array of problems with them, for wrong sizes to using the same model for multiple part numbers.

 

[swertel]

1) Is the part activated in the assy?

2) Open up the part in question and look at the Edge Bar. Is there a blue-square icon next to a single feature in the list, or is there a purple part or wavy (surface) icon(s) with several features? If there is anything defined as a surface (for imported parts), then it will only show in an assembly when activated.

--Scott

For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376

 

[cfee]

Blue square icons and purple wavy ones-
Whew! I'm surprised anyone gets ANYTHING done with this system!
Oh well. As long as the boss continues to be willing to pay for all of this stuff, All's well!
Good luck!

In ALL of the years I have used simple ACAD 3D,
1. I have NEVER encountered a machined part or a structural construction I wasn't able to perform, and-
2. I have numerous multi-thousand component assemblies that remain rock-steady, and finally-
3. I have NEVER received a vendor part that didn't drop right in, and I've used HUNDREDS, from DOZENS of vendors. This is NOT a common problem.

I share your sense of frustration. Look back at the folks who replied to your post. I've received help from all of them. They are knowledgable, capable Designers... Not a one of them could offer you a direct solution to your problem in S-E. THIS is the "common problem".

I know this isn't much help. I looked into this in our office, too, and none of us could spot the obscure setting that MIGHT fix the problem you're having. I've encountered it here too, and was interested in the replies you got. None of them helped. Maybe in S-E v18...

Seriously- Good Luck. Let us know what you find out? I'll check back from time to time.

C. Fee

PS- The ONLY work-around I've discovered to this particular problem is to drop it into a session of simple ACAD 3D, and save-as an .SAT, then import that into S-E. Yes you lose "relationships", but don't we all? Seriously, If its a vendor part you probably aren't planning to create a multiple-family (family of parts) version of it anyway. If you need to edit it, you can go back to your ACAD, double-click on any editable feature, change the value, and re-save. This really works. Good Luck.

 

[fredericmenage]

C. Fee,

I just want to say that what is decribed in this thread is not a problem with SE. It's a problem with 3D softwares in general. (different formats, converters limitations,...)

A 3D program enabling you to visualize an assembly in 3D and rotate it as well as storing assembly constraints and modelling steps for easy modifications is more complex than a simple 2D software. A lot of designers/companies benefit tremendously from their 3D software in terms of productivity gains because of these capabilities.

This is also why advanced 3D softwares in general run into more conversion 'problems' than "2D" or softwares. But, in fact, we address these issues in SE with surface healing features in the converters, or in the interface (stitch) as well as other advanced surfacing features when there are missing surfaces for example.

Your method of bringing it into Acad and saving it as a sat file is a perfect example of the kind of possibilities you have when you're talking about converting 3D files. You will not find a direct solution for this problem because it's multi-faceted. The file could have been generated from a vast array of softwares. May be it was a native file or may be it was converted into a 'standard' format... For each case, you have to find the best format (I personnaly recommend x_t), then open it in SE and check if you have a solid (You can look if the cutout command is enabled for example - especially if purple wavy icons don't talk to you-). SE offers a lot of flexibility and possibilities as well when it comes to importing files.

my 2 cents,

Fred

 

[cfee]

"...check IF you have a solid..." (emphasis added)
That's my point.

S-E started iout as a single-point precision software, and only recently (v15) added mathematical contraints that made MOST of its translations almost as accurate as those we've been used to in simple DINO-CAD (ACAD) since v2.6. The problem with boundary stitching of solids was addressed and SOLVED at ACAD-12/AME, and the solution found to interface with other 3D's ESPECIALLY "mid-range modelers" that were upcoming over those next 4 or 5 years was to set THEIR error-checking resolutions to below the stitch threshold, INSTEAD of coding the actual solutions into the modeling kernel. This problem was further exacerbated by the switch from the ACIS kernel primarily over licensing issues where the solution to this particular issue had actually been properly coded (although some claim that in ACIS, other functionality limits were being approached even then...). SW & Inv. both use a combination of these approaches, resulting in workable solutions, with PRO-E W/F 2.0 making effective afforts in this arena as they migrate their operating interface forward (about 85% compl as of 2.0).

This is a common problem with S-E, though, and represents a real stumbling block. We can talk about how S-E and others are an attempt to interface the modeler with the kernel with varying degrees of succes, but that's a thread for another time. Suffice it to say that I stand on my previous post, as it is accurate both in intent and detail.

Again- Good luck. C. Fee

 

[fredericmenage]

Hi,

Interesting comments. I can just say that SE and SW and many other 3D softwares use the parasolid kernel. I guess they all depend on the same core and must behave fairly similarly when it comes to precision of 3D data.

Anyway, that's not really what I was talking about. Let me give you an example: If you try to convert an imprecise iges file with SE (or another 3D software like the ones you mentioned), you might get gaps between the surfaces because of the code in the iges file (ie, a set of surfaces and not a solid). In that case, you need to 'stitch' the surfaces to "fill" those gaps indicating what is an acceptable tolerance for you (this is exvtly how the SE 'stitch' command works). Any of the softwares you mentioned would need to do the same thing (except if they do the stitch in the background without asking you for the input tolerance which is not a good thing).

Fred

 

[beachcomber]

swhits,
To get back to the original question....

Where did the file come from ?
What format did you receive it in ?
Is it a single solid or does it comprise multiple surface bodies?
Check this as described in swertels posting (the nice colourful icons are there to help !!)

I've moved jobs now and don't have access to SE any more but I'll TRY TO HELP WITH SUGGESTIONS.

bc.