Automatic Placement Constraints (cont.)

[bhayden]

This goes back to a thread last June. Brian Adkins pointed out that Automatic Placement Constraints were available in 2001 if you used the hidden config option:



enable_component_interfaces YES



I'm just now getting around to giving it a try as I'm cleaning up my desk for the new year and came across a printout I'd made at the time of this tip.



I created a couple of sample parts and put a couple of component interface constrains on one of the parts, a round peg. I started an assembly with a block that has a round hole and then added the peg to the assembly. A dialog box pops up and asks me to select an interface or no interface. I do that and it then prompts me to pick a surface and hole to complement the constraints set in the part peg. This is essential the same as when you use repeat component.



Here's my question. Is there a method where you drag the component near the intended hole and it snaps into place ala the way SolidWorks tried to implement? Did SolidWorks ever get that to work reliably? Also, does anyone know if you create comp constraints in 2001 will they still be valid when the part is brought into WF?



Bernie Hayden

XKL LLC

 

[swcalvert]

Bernie, I know this is a Wildfire answer, but you can autoplace components like you have described. I use it all the time when I place PEM components in sheetmetal parts.



This brings me to another question I've wanted to ask, in my short usage of Pro/E, about assemblies. In my opinion, it sure seems like a waist of file space if I have to create an assembly for each of my sheetmetal parts that requires some kind of press-in stud, nut or standoff. Is there a way to assemble parts without actually having to create an assembly?



Steve C

 

[bhayden]

Ah yes, PEM fasteners. That's exactly the application I'm interested in. With SolidWorks it was a nice concept but so hit and miss on getting it right and difficult to change that it wasn't worth it. I have to admit though that that was back in release 2001 so they may have it right by now. If this indeed is working in WF then that would likely be the killer app that gets me to switch over when the production release of 2.0 is out.



How about family table parts; do you just apply the constrains to the generic and voila all the PEMs magicly snap into place?



As far as assemblies for sheetmetal I don't see any way around it. You might purchase the part with PEMs as a component but it is in fact an assembly for the manufacturer. Without it being an assembly you'd lose BOM capability which would be bad for the manufacturer and bad for your documentation. I just wish you could easily convert a part drawing into an assembly for those times you unexpectedly have to add a PEM to a sheetmetal part and then have to redo the drawing. Yes, I know, just make all sheetmetal parts an assembly from the start; seems like a crude work around.



I guess if you really need to combine the sheetmetal assembly into a single part you could by making it a shrinkwrap. This would certainly help with the high level assembly performance. I'm starting to take that approach with some of the manufacturer connector models that are way over the top for my purposes and after figuring out the cryptic combination of shrinkwrap features (as opposed to shrinkwrap parts) and the tedious process of simplified reps required it is very successfull in improving performace of large PCB assemblies.



-Bernie-

 

[swcalvert]

My PEM's are in a family table and yes I do add constriants to the generic. I wrote a tip in the sheetmetal folder that deals with component placement and interference with solids, which, by design, is how PEM stuff is installed. Autoplacing is still a little buggy IMHO, but it sure is neat to have the capibility.



Hmm, are you aying that I could start a sheetmetal part as an assembly? Do I model in assembly mode and then add components as needed?



In regards to PCB assmeblies, I haven't yet started any in WF, but I do model them in UG. This is one of the things I like about UG, it allows you to have one file that's both a model and an assembly.



Steve C

 

[bhayden]

> I wrote a tip in the sheetmetal folder that deals with

> component placement



Is that part of the Pro/E Central website? I'll take a look.



> Hmm, are you aying that I could start a sheetmetal part as an

> assembly?



I suppose you could start a sheetmetal part in an assembly but that seems like taking the top down paradigm a little to the extreme. What I'll sometimes do when I'm not sure if a PEM will be added later is create an assembly with the sheetmetal part as it's only component. That way when I do the detail drawing if I later add a PEM I don't have to go back and redo my work. It just seems like there should be a way to easily convert a part drawing into an assembly drawing.



Having not used or even seen a demo of UG I can't quite picture what you mean by having one file that's both a model and an assembly. I suppose that's the way Cadkey works (which was a derivative I believe of UG). It's more flexible in some respects but not nearly as slick for reuse of components and can be a nightmare to keep well documented as they take it one step farther and incorporate the drawing into the single file structure as well ala AutoCAD paperspace vs modelspace.



-Bernie-

 

[swcalvert]

Yes, it's part of Pro/E Central.



With UG you can either have a solid file that is called out in an assembly file which is then called out in a drawing file (just like Pro) or you can have one file that is all. As far a s documentation goes, if you're not using any PDM system, UG's single file method is real easy to keep up with, because you only have on file to deal with.



I used Cadkey prior to starting my UG knowledge. It's funny to hear people talk about those 2D days.



Steve C