Fixing assemblies that have both components and assembly features

OK, so I've learned painfully that Pro/E used to regenerate an assembly according to the model tree. So it would regenerate fine if you assembled component A, assembled component B, then made a cut within the assembly that trims material off of both. This is logical, after all. It works very nicely for showing the machined form of a weldment, where you have components to represent the raw pieces and raw weld shapes. It worked very well back in 2002 or so when these models and drawings were created.

Current Pro/E releases will no longer support this. It will open but not regenerate consistently or correctly. I would just be happy to retrieve the files and view the drawings correctly but that's not happening.

I now know that you need to use a subassembly to hold all of the components, put the subassembly into the main assembly, then apply the assembly cuts in the main assembly. It makes no sense that this should be necessary. We are doing it the "right" way with new models of course, but my problem is legacy models.

Our department has a number of assemblies (including family tables, etc) built in this manner. Each instance of course has it's own drawing. Re-doing them would be torture. Does anyone know a way to solve this problem by restructuring or otherwise fixing things? This also would need to keep the drawings associated and regenerating correctly.

Thanks,

David

First, I've never been a fan of assembly cuts. It's one of those things that had lots of promise but, in my experience, was always flaky, regen'd correctly sometimes and not others. And was additonally complicated by trying to get it to 'show' the cuts in the components. I'll agree that that has gotten tripley complicated in WF4.

Could you let us in on how you "now know that you need to use a subassembly to hold all of the components, put the subassembly into the main assembly, then apply the assembly cuts in the main assembly". A TPI or TAN, maybe? Something I could look up and get some details I could try out would be nice. It's bizarre, in the extreme, creating useless assemblies just to accomplsh a silly assembly cut. Not to mention that it's a configuration management nightmare, sorting real assemblies from the artificial, convenient, transient. I'll tell you, PDMLink, which I live in and by, would never understand this.

Oops, you said the other black magic word, 'family tables'. Now you have flakiness squared. Did someone tell you restructing might work? It has to be something about isolating the instatiation to a particular assembly/subassembly. But, honestly, I'd have to meet this monster in person to ferret this one out. It could be something as simple as how you name nested generics.

David Janes