reset layer settings

[uwam2ie]

I'm often fighting the problem with layer settings in parts and from components-- foreign data from colleages and co workers. To explain. the problem: the annoyance is the layer setting controlled from geometry in the parts can be different in display and assembly part( our components are added on original layers -by default). Example - when I move a sketch from a component (referenceset entire part) to a layer its not the same layer setting in display part of the component. I think this should be no difference - but this has a long history in UG and will never be fixed ;-). Question is how to reset ? How do you tackle this problem.
thx in ad

 

[JohnRBaker]

Which is one reason why I personally tend to avoid using layers and why we as a company are depending more and more on automating the 'management' (control of visibility) of referenced objects, such as Sketches and Datums (and if you wanted even more 'aggressive' hiding of referenced objects, such as trimming surfaces and such, in the 'white space' of the Part Navigator, press MB3, select Properties and toggle the 'Hide Objects When Used' option ON).

The thing that you have to remember when 'working in context' is that it's the Displayed Part which controls how objects look, including which Color table to use AND which layers are visible or not. So even if you save the Component's part file with the Sketch layer invisible, if you use the Entire Part Reference Set in the Assembly and the Assembly's Layers are set as Visible, the layers of the Component will be as well.

The problem with Layers is that while every object has a Layer assigned to it, the status of that Layer is owned by the Part File itself and in the case of an Assembly, the Displayed Part.

Note that the best practice that has evolved over the years has been to depend more and more on Hide/Show (Blank/Unblank) and the use of Reference Sets to act as filters (remember, objects which are NEVER loaded into the Assembly can NOT have their Layer status mis-assigned). The advantage of Hide/Show is that this status is owned by the objects themselves and cannot be overridden by the Assembly unless you explicitly do that on an object by object basis.

Anyway, I know that this doesn't really help with your current situation, but perhaps it will help you establish some best practices going forward which will make these problems less of an issue in the future.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[uwam2ie]

thank you John on reply.
IMHO layers are not that problem - I should be that when I move geometrie from assembly level of the component it should also move on the same layer in the display part - where is the problem? Everybody is happy and the layering will be more controlable - no mismatch. Would improve the usabillity of NX very strong. Btw I don't like those improvements were made in all situation with internal sketches.

 

[JohnRBaker]

Internal Sketches are optional. That being said, they do simplify things since they are automatically hidden and yet appear when needed. And in NX 7.5 things even better as now you don't have to access the Sketch at all when editing a feature created using a Sketch if all you wish to do is modify existing Sketch dimensions as they are now automatically accessible when in the feature edit dialog.

The real issue is that Layers are a bit of a legacy concept inherited from the earliest days of CAD. Back in 1977, when I first stated to use Unigraphics, we had only 31 layers which had just been enhanced from 14 and which was increased to the current 256 in 1978, and except for Categories and User Interface changes, they have not evolved in any significant way since then. In fact, most newer systems on the market today don't even have anything which could even be called a 'layering' scheme.

Unfortunately, layers are not always compatible with some of today's functionality, such as assembly modeling, particularly when 'working in context'. Long term, we need some different tools and behaviors, some of which we are slowing implementing, but people have to change their workflows and take advantage of what we are doing so that they can get the most out of the software and limit the places where these legacy issues crop-up.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[uwam2ie]

John,
I have done some other cad - layers are Ok IMHO not old fashion - but they had never really had been reviewed in assembly modelling as you said - that is even the same with referencesets most users hate them because layer or ( filtering) model referencesSets on assembly level makes Nx not very easy to use. Sometimes fewer options are straight ways ...

 

[JohnRBaker]

I think a clear understanding of what Reference Sets can and cannot do is the one of the most important 'skills' one can acquire (next to perhaps having a good understanding of Constraints) when working with Assemblies. And to this end we've made a subtle change in NX 7.5 which while it only has an indirect impact on Reference Sets will nevertheless help to perhaps reduce the angst that people have about using them. Some people get confused because in addition to them being the means to 'filter' out from the detail models what it is exactly that we do NOT want to see at the Assembly level, we also have used them in the past as the mechanism for loading lightweight or alternative representations of piece-parts instead of the precise solid model. Starting with NX 7.5, Reference Sets will no longer be pressed into service to do that since the lightweight representations of models are now integrated into the model itself, sort of like the color of a body or the font of the edges. Now you just indicate that you wish to see the Assembly Components as lightweight or precise, but that has nothing to do with Reference Sets, thus allowing you to focus on what they do best, and that's collecting that which you wish to see when you see the part model in the context of an Assembly and nothing else.

I know this may sound obtuse and even a bit trivial, but anything which makes it easier to understand why and when I use a particular function and what benefit I can expect from it, such as Reference Sets, can only be positive. After all, you just said it yourself, "Sometimes fewer options are straight ways..." and we believe that as well.

Philosophically, I agree with all that you've said, but I also believe that we are providing the better tools and that you really need to leverage what's already there and to get onto the preferred 'path' as this is where the investments are being made and where we expect the future ones to come into play as well.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[uwam2ie]

oh John,
I must apologize in nx7.5 there is an option to inherit the seeting into the owning part - in object display -
cool