Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
reference sets
- Thread starter GPowers2
- Start date
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
Please see my comments just posted in JCBCad's thread concerning components and Reference Sets.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Gary,
Even if you could I wouldn't. It may be okay by one method or another to do this for layouts etc, and NX provides some methods by which it may be done, (not I suspect as you described), but anyway there is probably a short term use for it. However in the long run for other users to pick up your data and work with it is very difficult to expect them to maintain the reference sets as you envisioned they should be used. Many sites disallow the use of reference sets in assemblies because it can lead to confusing behaviour.
Perhaps if you could say why you wanted to to this it would be help us to suggest solutions. I suspect there may be a better way around whatever your problem is, or at least something perhaps less fraught with downstream angst.
Cheers
Hudson
Even if you could I wouldn't. It may be okay by one method or another to do this for layouts etc, and NX provides some methods by which it may be done, (not I suspect as you described), but anyway there is probably a short term use for it. However in the long run for other users to pick up your data and work with it is very difficult to expect them to maintain the reference sets as you envisioned they should be used. Many sites disallow the use of reference sets in assemblies because it can lead to confusing behaviour.
Perhaps if you could say why you wanted to to this it would be help us to suggest solutions. I suspect there may be a better way around whatever your problem is, or at least something perhaps less fraught with downstream angst.
Cheers
Hudson
DavidTolsma
Mechanical
If you are going to create reference sets in an assembly level, it should be all or nothing. A little more granular should be all on layer 1 for example like the GM standards are. But they also go to the extreme of not allowing many items in the assembly level.
Keep It Simple
-Dave Tolsma
Tolsnet LLC
Keep It Simple
-Dave Tolsma
Tolsnet LLC
DavidTolsma
Mechanical
what is "clever programming"? It looks for geometry type on a specific layer, adds all to the reference set. I'm not sure which part you referring to as clever. I was a developer in that group that maintains the GPDL, and while I think it is a great set of tools, if you think there is some magic going on your mistaken. Pretty simple, Layers have groups, groups contain allowable data, check layers vs categories, do something with the data (add to reference set), set a flag.
-Dave Tolsma
-Dave Tolsma
Oh Dave it is a little bit clever; enough that you probably couldn't do it with a macro. I haven't dissected the code personally but it also works with both assemblies and components and at least does the correct thing in either or should I say both cases. Take credit where you may that it works.
Standard NX doesn't come with that functionality and the post seemed to indicate that some people wished it would. The answer to that is that in some cases people may wish to use the system differently if only for layout work and you lose something if you take away the ability for that to occur.
Even Einstein probably came to think relativity was really rather obvious after dedicating a lifetime to grappling with physics. What is clever to one may be inconsequential to another. Don't get too hung up on my use of the word clever.
Since you mentioned it I think GM's system tries too hard to be all things to all people without setting some limits that it could have used to make the whole thing easier to maintain. For example, what about the stupid sideways linking they had us doing of late? That's way too much work for way too little gain, they need a clever programmer to sort out something quicker and easier to overcome those kinds of problems.
Cheers
Hudson
Standard NX doesn't come with that functionality and the post seemed to indicate that some people wished it would. The answer to that is that in some cases people may wish to use the system differently if only for layout work and you lose something if you take away the ability for that to occur.
Even Einstein probably came to think relativity was really rather obvious after dedicating a lifetime to grappling with physics. What is clever to one may be inconsequential to another. Don't get too hung up on my use of the word clever.
Since you mentioned it I think GM's system tries too hard to be all things to all people without setting some limits that it could have used to make the whole thing easier to maintain. For example, what about the stupid sideways linking they had us doing of late? That's way too much work for way too little gain, they need a clever programmer to sort out something quicker and easier to overcome those kinds of problems.
Cheers
Hudson
- Thread starter
- #9
People ,
my intended use was in support of an assembly drawing that captures many variation of My Model assembly .... in this instance a Model Roll was employed to take on board a part that was pictorially different. this assembly was being employed at a higher Product assembly by colleagues overseas...... so I have all the parts I ever wanted to capture the history of my assembly... I just need to control the current assembly being used by a colleague in a higher assembly .....
currently my fix is to WAVE like the solids I need and add to the top level Assembly reference Set ( note the Reference Set is the current model content ) ....
I have a fix .... I just need to know whether I was missing a trick with my original question .....
.... gary
PS : thanks for all the do's and don'ts, also it is not a common occurance to make reference Sets on the assembly unless we have WAVE linked data ..... or on these model rolls where we are controlling what goes forward ...
my intended use was in support of an assembly drawing that captures many variation of My Model assembly .... in this instance a Model Roll was employed to take on board a part that was pictorially different. this assembly was being employed at a higher Product assembly by colleagues overseas...... so I have all the parts I ever wanted to capture the history of my assembly... I just need to control the current assembly being used by a colleague in a higher assembly .....
currently my fix is to WAVE like the solids I need and add to the top level Assembly reference Set ( note the Reference Set is the current model content ) ....
I have a fix .... I just need to know whether I was missing a trick with my original question .....
.... gary
PS : thanks for all the do's and don'ts, also it is not a common occurance to make reference Sets on the assembly unless we have WAVE linked data ..... or on these model rolls where we are controlling what goes forward ...
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
OK, now that you've given us a better description of what it is that your attempting to do, it would appear that your beat approach would be to use Arrangements. These can allow you to create alternate 'arrangements' of components, both in terms of content AND position and then use these different Arrangements in downstream applications, such as a drawing or the next level high assembly where the same subassembly needs to be have two or more different 'arrangements' in that next level assembly.
Anyway, check it out as this would seem to be the route you should be going.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Anyway, check it out as this would seem to be the route you should be going.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
- Thread starter
- #11
- Status
Similar threads
