drawing-model

You can, but I must ask why would anyone want to?

Snapshot all your views, detatch the model from the drawing, (if you're going to do this, make a backup for when you realise it was a mistake) or export the drawing via cgm then import it into a new drawing. (probably a better solution)

I have the horrible feeling that this sounds worse than it is, knowing that you're not a beginner, a rank amateur at parametric modelling and its associative derivatives. So, maybe you could just say a couple words about what the problem is and what you're trying to accomplish.

If you're serious about this (separating drawing from model), just print out the drawing, stick it in a filing cabinet. When it comes time to rev the drawing, ignore the model. Just redline a copy of the drawing. Then make another copy, get out your whiteout and pens and play draghtsman. Now, forget the model and digital data, it's worthless; hopelessly out of date. No changes went back into the model and no changes to the model will be reflected in the drawing. This is what we understand "separating the model from the drawing" to be.

John, you're simply maintaining the fiction, the illusion that the result is a Pro/e drawing. But, as soon as anyone goes to modify the model or drawing, they'll find out quickly that the drawing doesn't modify and modification of the model is pointless as it doesn't show up in the drawing. Better to say right out, as you were inclined to, that it's impossible. Or, you could say, just export it, but even there, what's the point.

OK, ya got me, no, I don't get it. Something's missing here....

I find it quite useful actually.

I regularly want to send another ProE user the drawing and not the assembly/models - this means I don't have to export it to a neutral format

Sean

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sean Kerslake Dept of Design & Tech Loughborough University LE11 3TU

"John, you're simply maintaining the fiction, the illusion that the result is a Pro/e drawing. "

You know, you're right. Bad data is far more likely to cause mistakes than no data. If a piece of information exists in more than one place (and there's very little reason why it should) then identifying the master, and updating copies, is essential. By making a stand alone copy, the update process becomes manual, and will be forgotten on occaision.

Sean, if you're sending a copy to another user, you may wish to rename, (or append something to the name of the file) your files so the other user knows they are working from an uncontrolled copy. If you send models, shrinkwrapping them to make single unalterable features can be a goos idea. If they want changes, they must request they be done on the master, not their version.

Why not make a pdf and send it? of a DWG?

That's an excellent idea. It has a couple things going for it, especially the PDF suggestion:

• They're easy to make

• They're very portable ~ no worries about the receiver being able to open and view them

• Because they're based on PostScript, they're convertible to other vector formats, like DWG, DXF, SVG, PCL, DRW, CGM, etc

• And, since it's a non-native graphics format and standard, no possibility that it will be taken as a released Pro/e file, which remains safe and sound. You can transmit released design data in PDF format, but this will, in any kind of formal releasing environment, be "stamped" as released

• It's part of good document control procedures and good configuration management practice

• It cuts down dramatically on the number of "bad" parts, i.e., ones made to an outdated revision