Continue to Site

Welcome to MCAD Central

Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.

Mixing simplified reps and family tables

dr_gallup

Moderator
Using WF 4

I have always been a big user of family tables. We tend to have multiple component variations in our assemblies and it's so easy to have different instances of components in different instances of assemblies.

Recently I tried using simplified reps for a low level assembly which has worked out well for the drawings up to the level of that assembly. Now I want to add variants of that assembly in an upper level assembly. Normally I would add the generic low level assembly to the family table of the upper level assembly and then for specific instances replace using a family table instance of the low level assembly. I can't do that as in this case, I have no instances, only simplified reps. I don't see any way to use simplified reps in a family table.

Have I totally screwed up mixing family tables and simplified reps? What should I do now?
 
Ooops!!
No help here, just interested in the outcome.
Good luck Dr dude!

I just switched to Creo 2 a few days ago, still trying to figure out where all the commands are. Some have completely disappeared...
 
No help for you, dr_gallup, but -


dross:


Check out the help drop down menu. I'm not using your version, but my bersion has something called a menu mapper which shows you where the commands are hiding.
 
Some of the commands have changed names so the search tool does not find them.
Others seem to have completely vanished.
For instance: "Units" returns nothing. "setup" returns only render setup. I was able to find these, but it took quite a bit of poking around.
 
Continue with the simplified rep approach.

Make a simplified rep of upper level assembly, include which lower level assembly simplified rep by picking it within the view manager.

I hope this helps.javascript:AddSmileyIcon('
smiley33.gif
')

MC
 
That gets really ugly because some parts are being controlled by the family table and some by the simplified rep. Almost impossible for any one else to figure out how to use the model. I think I'm going to do away with the simplified reps. The interface is much harder to control than family tables as you have to deal with each rep one by one and can not see what is in or out of other reps. Family tables you can make mass changes and see the status of every instance as well as having the verify tool to make sure they work.
 
You should be able to create a simplified rep of the upper level assembly and replace the rep of the sub-assembly with it's desired simplified rep. I've done this but I don't have the time right now to go walk through the steps and right it down. I shouldn't even be here.
 
Yes I can but that get to the point of my last post. Some components are getting controlled by the family table and some by simplified reps making the management of the assembly a nightmare.

In some ways the simplified rep functionality is "better" but the interface to manage them is very poor as you have to manage each rep individually so if you have a bunch of instances/reps you have to edit the reps one by one and remember exactly what you need in each one. Family table is much easier to manage.
 
I would go with family tables, but they can get unwieldy as well.


Also, family tables are easier for other users to figure out, as another poster mentioned. I've done the simplified rep at the top level and it gets very confusing.
 
dr_gallup said:
Yes I can but that get to the point of my last post. Some components are getting controlled by the family table and some by simplified reps making the management of the assembly a nightmare.

In some ways the simplified rep functionality is "better" but the interface to manage them is very poor as you have to manage each rep individually so if you have a bunch of instances/reps you have to edit the reps one by one and remember exactly what you need in each one. Family table is much easier to manage.

You can display the info for the simplified reps in the model tree and manage them from there. Then you can see what is in (or not) for each rep.
 
Well, heres my take on it. I think they both have very specific uses andtheir functionality really shouldn't cross over. Family tables are for model, assembly variants. Simplified reps are for representations of those variants for use in drawings, assembly instructions, etc.


The way I look at it a family table effectively creates a variant that would essentially be a different part, normally requiring a different part number or an option bill of materials.


Simplified Reps are just that... Representations of the particular configuration to simplify the view, to show objects that would be hidden, etc.
 
I would agree with that. Unfortunately, I used simplified reps to make different part numbers. Worked fine up to that level of the assembly/drawings. Some day I'm going to have to redo it. Fortunately only about 4 drawings.
 
Yeah, over the years I've got a few "lessons learned" items that will eventually have to be redone. Guess it's the nature of the beast.
 
I'm struggling with the same issue. We have multiple sets of tooling that we put in a standard machine. I'm putting it all in a top level generic model. This is working out so so. When I create my drawings, I set the top level generic as active, and then I place my BOM. Then I set the various instances as active and place the views. The problem is that I cannot use the parametric balloons with the top level generic BOM to balloon the instance views. So I can either use manually placed non-parametric balloons, or I can insert BOM repeat regions for each instance, and fix the indices of each to match the the top level generic BOM. Either way is cumbersome. Then I looked at simple reps and I didn't get very far before I decided family tables seemed better.

Ultimately, I wonder if I'm trying to use functionality that is more work than it is worth. I usually manually place dimensions rather than showing the dimensions used to create the model.

Any thoughts?
 
TMPENG
"The problem is that I cannot use the parametric balloons with the top level generic BOM to balloon the instance views. So I can either use manually placed non-parametric balloons, or I can insert BOM repeat regions for each instance, and fix the indices of each to match the the top level generic BOM. Either way is cumbersome."

Any thoughts? Yes

As for balloons, we use one that is parametric that is driven by a part parameter. This is done by creating a custom balloon that pulls the part parameter.This way the part detail number is always robust.The fix indices never has to be used.

MC
 
Hi, can you please elaborate in this? Are you saying the BOM item # is driven by a part parameter? So I'd basically be ordering my BOM from within the model? How would that work if I used a part in a completely unrelated assembly. In that case it's item number would be fixed, or do you change the parameter for each assembly you put that part in?

I really appreciate the help.

Matt
 
TMPENG,

I just wrote you a follow up to your question but lost it due to this method of posting. Its been a long day, I will try again tomorrow if all goes as planned.
What are you using for file management?
PDMlink Windchill ?

MC
 

Sponsor

Articles From 3DCAD World

Back
Top