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
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
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,
out your whiteout and pens and play draghtsman. Now, forget the model and
data, it's worthless; hopelessly out of date. No changes went back into the
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,
find out quickly that the drawing doesn't modify and modification of the model
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
Dept of Design & Tech
"John, you're simply maintaining the fiction, the illusion that the
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.
That's an excellent idea. It has a couple things going for it, especially the
* They're easy to make
* They're very portable ~ no worries about the receiver being able to open and
* 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
releasing environment, be "stamped" as released
* It's part of good document control procedures and good configuration
* It cuts down dramatically on the number of "bad" parts, i.e., ones made to an
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.