Using arrangements for large assemblies

[DMiller01]

I thought I had a solution to creating equipmemt layouts that would not overtax my workstation. My layouts show how several pieces of equipment are located in a production line and the location for air, electrical and chilled water drops. I decided to create an arrangement for all the major assemblies and suppress any interal components that would not be visible in my equipment layout. However there appears to be a major glitch.

The act of switching from the default arrangement where nothing is suppressed to the alternate minimal arrangement, where I have suppressed unnecessary components, wreaks havic with my component drawings. I must make mention that all our drawings exist in the same part file as the solid model. We do not use master model techniques for our drawings. Switching a sub-assembly component to the minimal arrangement removes the BOM entries and balloons for those components in the drawing. Switching the arrangement back to the default returns the bom entries and the balloons but I must clean up the table format and reposition the returned balloons.

What are my options?
Can I temporarily lock the balloons and BOM?
Can the view be made arrangement specific?
Would going to a master model where the drawing is a separate file provide me with any options not currently available?
Are there better techniques to accomplish my goals?

I have attached an image of an example of a typical layout drawing

Thanks,

I am using 7.5.2.5 NATIVE on Dell with windows XP OS

 

[looslib]

Using master model for the drawing would solve the problem as the drawing would always be set to retrieve the full model.


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

Ben Loosli

 

[DMiller01]

looslib,

Thank you for your response. Retrieving the whole model is what I want to avoid. The update times are excessive and I occassionally run out of memory.

I am using 7.5.2.5 NATIVE on Dell with windows XP OS

 

[looslib]

Well, if you set the drawing file to retrieve a portion of the whole file, either arrangements or reference sets, that is what will be loaded.
The MM should avoid the issue of having to reconstruct the BOM with each change.


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

Ben Loosli

 

[JohnRBaker]

There are reasons WHY we developed the Master Model approach when creating Drawings and NC machining set-up models, as well as FEA/FEM models, and if users choose to ignore our recommendations, we don't have a lot of options to give you since we've already addressed most of these issues, by use of the Master Model approach.

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.com/museum/

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

 

[DMiller01]

John,

I certainly have been listening to the periodic and regular recommendations for use of master model techniques. We do use it for our CAM setup files. However till now most of the reasons to implement it for our drawings have not strongly applied to our relatively small engineering department.

The need to manage large assemblies may be what causes us to make the change to master model for our drawings. I'm not against it but I need a good reason to justify the change.

Thanks,

I am using 7.5.2.5 NATIVE on Dell with windows XP OS

 

[cowski]

...I occassionally run out of memory.

If your drawing and model are in the same file, you are loading more information in memory than is necessary. Partial loading options and/or lightweight representations may help you out.

 

[JohnRBaker]

...but I need a good reason to justify the change.

I think you've just been given another one ;-)

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.com/museum/

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

 

[ewh]

It is usually good practice to look ahead whem implementing a system such as NX. Poor practices can snowball into huge implementation problems if/when future requirements include such additions as a PLM system. Using the master model approach is just one consideration that can prevent future headaches, with little cost/effort to implement from the start. It is far easier to start out with good practices than to try to correct everything mid-stream.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[looslib]

It isn't a new idea with NX to use the Master Model approach. They first started towards that in 1994 when V10 was released. PTC had done it since the start with Pro/E.

You have already seen the advantage of using it with CAM stuff, so just bite the bullet and move ahead with drafting. Your systems will get a little extra life from the switch, but you should still be looking at Win7-64bit for new hardware.


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

Ben Loosli

 

[DMiller01]

I do hear what everyone is saying. I will create a master model drawing of the top level layout assembly and some of the component assemblies. Once I have a working example I can then try to sell master modeling for drawings to the engineering department manager.

I am using 7.5.2.5 NATIVE on Dell with windows XP OS

 

[cowski]

Since you are on native, you will probably also want to put some thought into file naming. When I was working on a native system we appended "_dwg" to the file name to indicate it was the drawing corresponding to the master file. It worked for us, but there may be better ways.

 

[ewh]

Yes, that is the most common naming method that I have seen also.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[JohnRBaker]

Starting with NX 5.0, if you use Drawing Templates you can create the Master Model drawings automatically and the system will use whatever suffix you desire to indicate the type of file being created. These naming rules can be set-up in Customer Defaults.

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.com/museum/

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

 

[DMiller01]

Now I know I am going to get some flack for this. I have followed strong suggestions that I should be using master model technic for my drawings. BUT I am also looking at all other non-master model options so that when and if I try to sell the master model technic to management I will be able to explain what works and what does not and why. So bear with me.

With the drawing and assembly model in the same file, when setting the base view for an assembly I can specify which arrangement to use. Is there a way to also tie the parts list to that same arrangement?


I am using 7.5.2.5 NATIVE on Dell with windows XP OS

 

[DMiller01]

I continue to work on getting a usable drawing layout using arrangements to suppress components not required for the drawing views.

I felt like I was making progress. I created "minimal" arrangements at various assembly levels to suppress un-necessary componets. I created separate files for my assembly drawings using master model technic. Everything appeared to be working till I got to the top most assembly which is to be my layout drawing.

I am unable to place a base view without getting a "Update failure list" error dialog box. It states "modeler error occurred when updating hidden line display". I am given the choice to ignore, suppress or delete. None of these selections help. I have tried some of the suggestion noted in the detailed description, without success.

Also one of my components is not displaying as the minimal arrangement which is selected. The ANT shows the component is set to the right arrangement but the component assembly displays as the complete default arrangement.

I'd settle for figuring out just one of these issues today. I'm calling GTAC but if anyone here has any ideas I'd appreciate hearing them.

I am using 7.5.2.5 NATIVE on Dell with windows XP OS

 

[JohnRBaker]

I continue to work on getting a usable drawing layout using arrangements to suppress components not required for the drawing views.

You're killing flies with a sledgehammer!!!

If all you want to do is to NOT display certain components in certains views, then may I suggest that you look at using...

Assemblies -> Context Control -> Hide Components in View...

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.com/museum/

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

 

[DMiller01]

John,

I thought I was following your suggestions. Use master model and arrangements. I will try "hide components in view". My goal is to be able to manipulate the assembly model file and drawing file for the purpose of creating a layout without excessive time spent waiting for my computer to process the model or the drawing views.

I am using 7.5.2.5 NATIVE on Dell with windows XP OS