mjcole_ptc
New member
One of the few nice things about Unigraphics was that even with it's crappy assembly constraints UI (Redefine Not Possible) was that it could simultaneously solve assembly constraints and the lack of component order importance so there was less shuffling of the assembly tree. Pros and Cons always exist but for the life of me I don't see how this should be impossible when components are assembled with mechanisms and have degrees of freedom.
I believe this is just a lack of functionality in Pro/E by way of lack of ease. I shouldn't have to use a distance or angle analysis along with BMX in order to drive assembled components or mechanisms together.
If you had a linkage system you cold assemble one end to an object the opposite end to another object and then mate the middle linkage by hooking it to one linkage and then positioning so it fits the other linkage.
This should be possible on CAD but I believe there is a bidding war going on between constraints and Mechanism. I shouldn't have to assemble a mechanism by mating things to where they should end up just to make mechanism creation possible.
Michael
I believe this is just a lack of functionality in Pro/E by way of lack of ease. I shouldn't have to use a distance or angle analysis along with BMX in order to drive assembled components or mechanisms together.
If you had a linkage system you cold assemble one end to an object the opposite end to another object and then mate the middle linkage by hooking it to one linkage and then positioning so it fits the other linkage.
This should be possible on CAD but I believe there is a bidding war going on between constraints and Mechanism. I shouldn't have to assemble a mechanism by mating things to where they should end up just to make mechanism creation possible.
Michael