Need some advise about Generic.prt vs using .Asm and modify?

[texaspete]

Objective: Use a Generic part and add holes.

First Technique; modify the .prt of the generic and create instances. The problem is the I have 50 instances that some have holes some don't, some have different size holes and different locations. I have notices that when the next user has to add to the family table - the use is overwhelmed with family table that has becomes extremely complex with columns and rows.

The second techique; Create an assembly file for each part, Then use the Create > cut in assembly mode. The second method only allow you to have 15 proe windows at one time.

The method here allow you to modify holes per your understanding of the 3D model. It reduces complexity.

Any advise.

texaspete.

 

[charleskim]

I definitely vote for first technique (Using family table part).



We have some family table parts with over 100 instances.



There are some ways to make it more user friendly.

1. Name all features using (setup > name).

2. Put some explanation in relations to describe how the part works.

 

[catch22]

We utilize family tables to a great extent and have found that assembly cuts really do not play well with the family table.

You may also try in the assembly: Modify, modify part and create the cut.

I agree with naming the features. This helps anyone in the future as well as yourself when redefining, rerouting et. al.

 

[dflockton]

One way to clean up a family table is to Insert an Instance-Level_Table instead of just adding a new row to your table. This allows you to group a number of related instances together. If there are 5 sub-categories of your part, it can make the table much cleaner and easier to use. For an example of a file that contains this sort of feature, go to the parts library that ships with ProE.



dflockton