Insert Geometry

You could redefine the merge feature and uncheck the "dependant" box. I'm not game to do it myself, but I guess it will copy the features of your base part into your new part. Then your new part is stand-alone.

Otherwise there's no way around it. After all ProE is parametric, so where would the part get the base information from except from the other part via the assembly?

You really don't need a assembly to do this.. the easiest way is the direct way... Insert/Shared Data/... and use one of the options... Copy Geometry... or Shrinkwrap... or Merge...

=2E.

If you know from the get go that you want no dependancies I think you can just use the existing part as a template for the old part. -- Does the existing part have any external dependancies?

You really don't need a assembly to do this.. the easiest way is the direct way... Insert/Shared Data/... and use one of the options... Copy Geometry... or Shrinkwrap... or Merge...

..

The interesting thing about all these methods, including 'Edit>Component = Operations>Merge', is that they're not much different from each other. = They all=20

• require some method of geometry placement
• provide for the resulting geometry being dependent or independent
• produce featureless, effectively non-parametric geometry, like a bunch = of solidified surfaces

They're all useful but limited in the same ways. Have you thought about = UDFs? These can emcompass any number of features up to all the features = in a model. The toughest thing is figuring out common references and = that may be as simple as a common coordinate system which is needed for = copy geoms anyway. But the results are superior, in my mind.

David Janes

Well,

I need the dependancy so that changes to the first model are updated in the second. And I can't merge/inheret a part except from an assembly... unless I'm doing something wrong.

Currently I do this then delete the assembly. The update works, it just gripes about missing the assembly for placement.

The first part is the casting, the second part is the machining operations to that casting.

I've never used UDF's nor do I have any clue what they are. Can you elaborate?

I think the way you're doing it (Merge/Inheritance) is the recommended = way. Except for deleting the assembly. I don't get what that buys you, = besides the obvious trouble.

I guess what I really don't get is how this works in the manufacturing = environment. I know they're supposed to represent before and after, = rough casting/machined part. But what's the inheritance feature for? = Don't you normally make a manufacturing model which is an assembly of = the rough and finished part then machine to the design model? Instead of = a workpiece, you've got the rough casting model? Seems like I've heard = different philosophies on this but it's not a discussion we've had here.

David Janes

Well I dug around a bit a found a few things. In the Merge/ inheritance feature you have two options: Set referencing type Assembly Context or External. So that sounds like what I'm looking for... ie I want to use the external context instead of an assembly context...BUT!!! the option is greyed out. Fine great.

Does anybody know how to un-grey out this option? I'm getting a headache.

As for casting vs maching operations, I haven't heard ANY school of thought. I'm self taught (with the help of this forum) and this is the way that makes the most sense to me.

ie. The cast part has it's own partnumber, part file, and drawing for the creation of the tool and the control dimensions for that process. The machining operations are performed by a separate vendor, so this part is ordered by it's unique part number, with its own drawing and control dimensions.

It makes sense to me to make a casting part file, then merge/inheret the part into a new file and then add the machining operations. That way any changes to the cast model will follow into the machined model.

I realize that this would be much easier to use a family table with the cast as the generic and the machined as an instance. But this client HATES family tables for some reason and forbids their use. Ignorant, but those are the rules I have to work with.

Do you have an AAX license?

OK, I see, it does make sense this way: different vendors, different = part numbers; machined part a faithful copy of 'as cast' part but with = addtional features and staying tied to casting to capture changes. And, = with family tables out of the picture, you're down to some kind of = dependent copy geom feature.

If you are copying the features of a single part (casting), an assembly = is NOT needed. In the new, blank part, you do 'Insert>Shared = Data>Merge/Inheritance', open the casting part, pick placement = constraints (Default), make sure the Dependent box is checked, toggle = Inheritance and Done. Nothing could be simpler, no assembly reqired.

David Janes

Well, as Gluteous mentioned, I don't have AAX so I'm pretty much screwed.

Why would I buy a yugo when I can get a Lexus for the same price?

oh yeah, and the graphics suck hard. When 20% of american men are "color deficient" why wouldn't you incorporate more contrast and color variation in your display? Gives me a headache staring at the screen all day. [end rant]

Again, I really don't see what an ASSEMBLY, advanced or otherwise, has = to do with this. (Read the post it looks like you're replying to.) BTW, = BHA asked if you had AAX but didn't even suggest what you might need it = for. And then you jump to the conclusion, just by his asking the = question, that you're "screwed". I thought I was following this = conversation pretty well, but it looks like I'm completely lost.

David Janes

snipped-for-privacy@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

do with this. (Read the post it looks like you're replying to.) BTW, BHA ask= ed if you had AAX but didn't even suggest what you might need it for. And th= en you jump to the conclusion, just by his asking the question, that you're = "screwed". I thought I was following this conversation pretty well, but it l= ooks like I'm completely lost.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

I "jumped" to this comclusion by doing exactly what you suggested. I dug through a lot of previous posts in this forum. I don't have a link to the exact post, but it was decided that "Inheritance" features are not available with the Advantage package. They spent a lot of time comparing license files and available options.

When Pro/e went from 2001 to Wildfire, many of these features were taken out of the base package. You have to buy the AAX module to get them.

I believe this includes: Inheritance, skeleton models, publish geometry, ...power windows, power locks, power steering, seatbelts, etc...

I "cheat" the loss of External Inheritance by creating a Merge feature in an assembly. Then I just toss the assembly. Pro/e gripes about missing the assm file, but it still works.

messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@q27g2000prf.googlegroups= .com...

to do with this. (Read the post it looks like you're replying to.) BTW, = BHA asked if you had AAX but didn't even suggest what you might need it = for. And then you jump to the conclusion, just by his asking the = question, that you're "screwed". I thought I was following this = conversation pretty well, but it looks like I'm completely lost.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

I "jumped" to this comclusion by doing exactly what you suggested. I dug through a lot of previous posts in this forum. I don't have a link to the exact post, but it was decided that "Inheritance" features are not available with the Advantage package. They spent a lot of time comparing license files and available options.

When Pro/e went from 2001 to Wildfire, many of these features were taken out of the base package. You have to buy the AAX module to get them.

I believe this includes: Inheritance, skeleton models, publish geometry, ...power windows, power locks, power steering, sun roof, etc...

I "cheat" the loss of External Inheritance by creating a Merge feature in an assembly. Then I just toss the assembly. Pro/e gripes about missing the assm file, but it still works.

_____________ Oh, now I get the rant... and the rest of it. I guess I'm just spoiled, = having never had to work with the stripped down version. I certainly = didn't realize that AAX includes all that functionality. The only thing = I was sure that you needed it for was saved explode views. But it's = especially irritating that it's so hard to find out exactly what = functionality you DO get with a particular module.

David Janes

Yes. It's also an impediment to learning the program. A rather stupid omission by PTC that should be, and could easily be, rectified.

- another reason still not to jump on the train into the wildfire ;-) my 2001 is 2005, build 030 actually. That´s not too old to work with.

Walther

Thats a big issue I have with the Help files. You go to look into how to do something... you go and try it, and it doesn't work. Then you spend two days fu%*&ing with it only to find out.... YOU CAN'T.

If they prefaced the Help topic with "you can only do this with [such- n-such] package" it would save me a whole lot of time.

As a private contractor, I have to own my own licenses for SolidWorks and Pro/e. Well, when you're doing it yourself, you try to keep things as cheap as possible. Had I know how limited the Advantage package was, I would have budgeted differently to accomodate a better package.

The yearly maintinence packages for both of these programs are crippling. Especially when you are bidding against a bunch of "moonlighters" who don't have to pay for the software or hardware out of their own pockets.