Pro/E to FARO CMM software

Our company recently added FARO arm inspection tools to our arsenal. We can move simple part files to the FARO software well using IGES
files and using "Wireframe" and "Surfaces" as the geometry.
We're not getting geometry through when the Pro/E "part" is actually an assembly file (casting model = .prt, machining model = .asm). The FARO software is only importing a few features like the cosmetic threads.
We're currently testing permutations of the IGES export settings and trying .stp files too, but I'd really appreciate suggestions from those who have experience with this.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
company recently added FARO arm inspection tools to our arsenal.<BR>We can move simple part files to the FARO software well using IGES<BR>files and using "Wireframe" and "Surfaces" as the geometry.<BR><BR>We're not getting geometry through when the Pro/E "part" is actually<BR>an assembly file (casting model = .prt, machining model = .asm).&nbsp; The<BR>FARO software is only importing a few features like the cosmetic<BR>threads.<BR><BR>We're currently testing permutations of the IGES export settings and<BR>trying .stp files too, but I'd really appreciate suggestions from<BR>those who have experience with this.<BR><BR>Dave</BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Well, I'm guessing, right off the bat, that you'll never see Pro/CMM to run the FARO arm, in which case, you wouldn't be using IGES, STP, SAT. But when I've had trouble in this always troublesome area of communicating model information between softwares, I've done, among others, some of the following:</DIV> <DIV>1) at least try to export those formats as solids/shells because they're a more reliable, more accurate (b-rep) version of the part than surfaces/wireframe</DIV> <DIV>2) set absolute accuracy as high as it can tolerate; accuracy is the most common culprit in this kind of failure</DIV> <DIV>3) try importing the exported file back into Pro/e; likely, if Pro/e can't successfully import its own exported stuff, no one else will be able to</DIV> <DIV>4) try importing into a NURBS modeller, like Rhino, for verification/cleanup</DIV> <DIV>5) export a shrinkwrap of the assembly first (merged solid), open this then export as IGES, STP, etc.; if it won't even give you the option of merged solid, it's going to have trouble exporting reliable surface geometry</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>David Janes</DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks for the reply.
The root of the issue is that the FARO software does not understand anything in an IGES file that relates to an assembly. Accuracy and cleanup are not currently a problem (knock on wood). I already explored some of the accuracy and reimporting tricks and it had no effect.
If we export the assembly with the option "all parts", Pro/E creates an assembly iges file and component iges files. In my case, this is one assembly and one component. All assembly cuts appear in the component file, so I simply rename the component file to the proper name and I get the geometry I want. A bit annoying but not a problem.
Hopefully this helps others out there who might be using Faro inspection equipment.
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If I understand correctly, all 'machining operations', threading, etc. is being done as Assembly Features(?). What you might try is copying the part Solid Surfs to the assembly as a last feature, blanking the part and exporting IGES (Flat, Surfaces or Shells).
errata ...

Fairly common problem, in a generic sense. I suppose they're aware. The lack of support for assy's may be intentional and purpose driven.

Accuracy is rarely* a problem if a sensible Absolute value appropriate for the geometry and in step with 'industry norms' (e.g. .01 mm or equiv) is used. More important are b-rep geometry flaws that should show up as Geometry Checks.
*Program dependent, of course. There's always the odd ball with respect to accuracy and, more often, bungling preprocessors that misinterpret any curve balls in the geometry definitions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><BR>The lack of support for assy's may be intentional and purpose driven.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>From Geesaman's descriptions, sounds like IGES doesn't understand "assembly cuts" and moves the geometry into the part, which, except for altering the "casting" model, you want to do anyway. BTW, there is a thing called a part simp rep. One thing you can do with it is turn features, like cuts, on and off. The problem now is that these part "states" don't show up in the drawing view menus. So, you might be able to use them to keep a single part (not a family table) without the confusion of an oddball "assembly". Maybe this will work its way into drawing mode, at some point.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><BR><BR>&gt; Accuracy and cleanup are not currently a problem (knock on wood).<BR><BR>Accuracy is rarely* a problem if a sensible Absolute value appropriate <BR>for the geometry and in step with 'industry norms' (e.g. .01 mm or equiv)<BR>is used.&nbsp; More important are b-rep geometry flaws that should show up as <BR>Geometry Checks.<BR><BR>*Program dependent, of course.&nbsp; There's always the odd ball with respect <BR>to accuracy and, more often, bungling preprocessors that misinterpret any <BR>curve balls in the geometry definitions.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Speaking of new things coming, I've heard that in WF5 (yeah, that ole milk train just keeps chuggin' along) they're getting rid of the strange "part" or relative&nbsp;accuracy in favor of "absolute" accuracy.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>David Janes</DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This situation all makes sense if you stop thinking Pro/E for a moment and think simply about 3D geometry. STEP and IGES are purely for geometry, which means that parametric ideas such as assembly cuts made on a part are irrelevant. The importing CAD system has to be able to import the geometry directly into the final shape.
Anyway, now is when I get greedy - we're getting our CMM data to push through, but it sure would be nice to pass through nominal dimensions and tolerances so that this data doesn't need to manually entered when building the CMM program. Time to talk to the folks at FARO, I guess...
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And to PTC or do they already provide a mechanism for communicating the information?
Maybe of interest ...
http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/projects/metrology_interoperability/CAD_GDT_standards.PDF http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/projects/metrology_interoperability/posters/IMTSPoster3.pps http://www.qualitymag.com/CDA/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000434861
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Our company recently added FARO arm inspection tools to our arsenal.<BR>&gt; We can move simple part files to the FARO software well using IGES<BR>&gt; files and using "Wireframe" and "Surfaces" as the geometry.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; We're not getting geometry through when the Pro/E "part" is actually<BR>&gt; an assembly file (casting model = .prt, machining model = .asm). The<BR>&gt; FARO software is only importing a few features like the cosmetic<BR>&gt; threads.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; We're currently testing permutations of the IGES export settings and<BR>&gt; trying .stp files too, but I'd really appreciate suggestions from<BR>&gt; those who have experience with this.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Dave<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Well, I'm guessing, right off the bat, that you'll never see Pro/CMM to run the FARO arm, in which case, you wouldn't be using IGES, STP, SAT. But when I've had trouble in this always troublesome area of communicating model information between softwares, I've done, among others, some of the following:<BR>&gt; 1) at least try to export those formats as solids/shells because they're a more reliable, more accurate (b-rep) version of the part than surfaces/wireframe<BR>&gt; 2) set absolute accuracy as high as it can tolerate; accuracy is the most common culprit in this kind of failure<BR>&gt; 3) try importing the exported file back into Pro/e; likely, if Pro/e can't successfully import its own exported stuff, no one else will be able to<BR>&gt; 4) try importing into a NURBS modeller, like Rhino, for verification/cleanup<BR>&gt; 5) export a shrinkwrap of the assembly first (merged solid), open this then export as IGES, STP, etc.; if it won't even give you the option of merged solid, it's going to have trouble exporting reliable surface geometry<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; David Janes<BR><BR>Thanks for the reply.<BR><BR>The root of the issue is that the FARO software does not understand<BR>anything in an IGES file that relates to an assembly.&nbsp; Accuracy and<BR>cleanup are not currently a problem (knock on wood).&nbsp; I already<BR>explored some of the accuracy and reimporting tricks and it had no<BR>effect.<BR><BR>If we export the assembly with the option "all parts", Pro/E creates<BR>an assembly iges file and component iges files.&nbsp; In my case, this is<BR>one assembly and one component.&nbsp; All assembly cuts appear in the<BR>component file, so I simply rename the component file to the proper<BR>name and I get the geometry I want.&nbsp; A bit annoying but not a problem.<BR><BR>Hopefully this helps others out there who might be using Faro<BR>inspection equipment.<BR><BR>David</BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>Thanks, yeah, I guess I've never tried those options besides "flat" for structure and didn't know what they did. Learn something new every day. This week I also learned how to DNC from a compact flash card. And I'm off tomorrow. Been a good week.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>David Janes</DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.