Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
Configurable assy I am not familiar with this term, is this using Pro-program ?
I would advise reviewing simplified reps for this task. Simplified reps will not require the regeneration of a family table and I feel are more intuitive because they can be made with out a table. Keep it simple is best I think.
mike, simplified reps are not so simple. Too many parts to include or exclude in a machine with thousands of parts. I have about 30 different configurations currently in a family table, but it is getting too hard to maintain. Family tables are a little easier (for me) to use than simplified reps.
Dross as for what you want to use it is entirely up to you, after all creating is one of the reasons we all got into this type of work.
One of the things I noticed viewing the video was the simplified master rep appeared on the lower left of the users screen. This tool seems to be some hybrid of interchange assembly and simplified rep.
When they revised the simplified rep tool with WF5 , I did not like the new user interface. That is why I use my config.pro to use the Wf4 interface. With your situation , I would be looking at rules for simplified reps maybe.
I thinksome thing like Rhino Grasshopper interface would be worth to evaluate and research, regarding Creo, to handle some kind of inteligence at assembly level
Configurable Assemblies and family tables are not really doing the same thing. It's like an option bill of materials vs. a standard bill of materials. With a family table you are defining a single variant or part number, for example. With the configurable assemblies, you can have a single part number with a number of options. This can produce the bill of materials and drawings required to produce that particular variant. With a family table you would have to have every possible variant of the top level assembly, subassemblies, and parts defined as well as manage it all.
The other option for configurable assemblies is that if you have Windchill, people (clients, sales people, engineers, etc.) can configure various options fromt the Windchill interface and produce a viewable to evaluate or to help sell the product. It can be connected to a web portal for customers to configure themselves and view their personally configured product. It can produce a BOM and if integrated with your MRP system generate the appropriate bills and workorders to produce the part.
The main reason for it is on the fly configuration for what can be a virtually infinite number of configurations.
Hello All,
Hope you all are keeping well in this time..
We have been using Interchange assemblies and Pro_program for quite some time. But few months ago, I realized that we have few Options Modeler Licenses lying around. I liked the interface because no programing was required. So I started a project using Options modeler and created configurable modules. Another reason to take the dive was, a roomer going around in the office, that Interchange assemblies will not be supported in future. (is that even true?)
But now, i feel, the combination of Pro_program and Interchange assemblies was better and quick, without having to remember to load Options Molder license every time before loading Creo.
The question is, is there a way of converting Configurable Modules back to Interchange assemblies?
What could be the quickest way?
Also, please suggest what would you select out of the 2 and why? / Which of these is better in the long run.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
