Removing a surface region

Hi Is it possible to remove a surface region in pro/m? Thanks Konrad

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
KA wrote:

Yes. There is a group of features only visible in Pro/M, unfortunately I don't recall the name of that group. Any geometry and surface regions defined in the mechanica environment can be found there.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Geesaman wrote:

Thanks Dave. That's Simulation Features and I didn't have a right-click menu over my Surface Regions. After an investigation I found that it was a family table instance, and the regions were set up in the Generic.
Konrad
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interesting, thanks for the info. I would have tripped over that too.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahooooooo.com wrote:

One more interesting info: Material assignments in parts were meant to be detected and used in assembly pro/m. Meshing goes good, but sometimes solver gets problems with stability of the structure. I got "the model is insufficiently constrained for the analysis" error many times- and it was kinda hard to trace. It took me ages to discover this bug. Now I alway assign material at assembly level. Konrad
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; KA wrote:<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Is it possible to remove a surface region in pro/m? Thanks<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Konrad<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; Yes.&nbsp; There is a group of features only visible in Pro/M, unfortunately<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; I don't recall the name of that group.&nbsp; Any geometry and surface regions<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; defined in the mechanica environment can be found there.<BR>&gt;&gt; Thanks Dave. That's Simulation Features and I didn't have a right-click<BR>&gt;&gt; menu over my Surface Regions. After an investigation I found that it was<BR>&gt;&gt; a family table instance, and the regions were set up in the Generic.<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; Konrad<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Interesting, thanks for the info.&nbsp; I would have tripped over that too.<BR>&gt; <BR><BR>One more interesting info: Material assignments in parts were meant to <BR>be detected and used in assembly pro/m. Meshing goes good, but sometimes <BR>solver gets problems with stability of the structure. I got "the model <BR>is insufficiently constrained for the analysis" error many times- and it <BR>was kinda hard to trace. It took me ages to discover this bug. Now I <BR>alway assign material at assembly level.<BR>Konrad</BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV><FONT face=Garamond>But then does the material assignment show up in Pro/e for model analysis?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Garamond></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Garamond>David Janes</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Janes wrote:

Normally, when an assembly's part has its material assigned in part only- you don't see the assignment icon on screen. The whole assembly gets meshed. It wouldn't mesh if it didn't have the material. And it gets calculated by the solver- but sometimes with error. If you assign the material in the assembly- you have the yellow material icon attached to the part. Konrad
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt; David Geesaman wrote:<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt; KA wrote:<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Is it possible to remove a surface region in pro/m? Thanks<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Konrad<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt; Yes.&nbsp; There is a group of features only visible in Pro/M,<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; unfortunately<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt; I don't recall the name of that group.&nbsp; Any geometry and<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; surface regions<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt; defined in the mechanica environment can be found there.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt; Thanks Dave. That's Simulation Features and I didn't have a<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; right-click<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt; menu over my Surface Regions. After an investigation I found<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that it was<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt; a family table instance, and the regions were set up in the Generic.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt; Konrad<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt; Interesting, thanks for the info.&nbsp; I would have tripped over that<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; too.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; One more interesting info: Material assignments in parts were meant to<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; be detected and used in assembly pro/m. Meshing goes good, but<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; sometimes<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; solver gets problems with stability of the structure. I got "the model<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; is insufficiently constrained for the analysis" error many times-<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and it<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was kinda hard to trace. It took me ages to discover this bug. Now I<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; alway assign material at assembly level.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Konrad<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; But then does the material assignment show up in Pro/e for model analysis?<BR>&gt;&nbsp; <BR><BR>Normally, when an assembly's part has its material assigned in part <BR>only- you don't see the assignment icon on screen. The whole assembly <BR>gets meshed. It wouldn't mesh if it didn't have the material. And it <BR>gets calculated by the solver- but sometimes with error.<BR>If you assign the material in the assembly- you have the yellow material <BR>icon attached to the part.<BR>Konrad</BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT face=Garamond>Sounds like the necessary and superior way to deal with material assignment for Pro/M. Historically, (don't know if it continued into the WF product) Pro/M and Pro/e came with separate and completely different material files. I always assumed that Pro/M's were the most official and reliable; Pro/e's seemed more like a do-it-yourself project as they were distributed in dozens of individual, customizable ASCII files. No one who used the Pro/e material files ever assumed they were correct; you always has to check them and they were often wrong by several decimal places, especially after they'd been around for a while and units had been changed back and forth a few times or the files had been manually edited without record. So, even to get a complete and accurate set of material files to use in Pro/e, I've taken to exporting Pro/M materials to Pro/e while in the system of units of choice. But, maybe this is unnecessary. Maybe the material definition "sticks" from Pro/M to Pro/e and I don't need to give it ANOTHER material assignment for Pro/e!?! Would be nice, anyway, if Pro/M's material assignment carried over into Pro/e.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Garamond></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Garamond>David Janes</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Janes wrote:

Thank you Dave for the historical trait. The new philosophy is one material assignment for pro/e (mass, bend table etc) pro/m (young modulus, poisson's ratio etc), rendering (colours, decals etc). I would be happier to have possibility to enter Young modulus as a function of temperature, because I have now materials like "316L_forging_300F", "316L_forging_400F", 316L_forging_500F" and so on. Physically few grades, but in the end of the day it makes hundreds of material files. Konrad
PS for the issue of material not assigned in the analysed assembly in pro/m: sometimes it gives also "internal error" message without any closer explanation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt; David Geesaman wrote:<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt; KA wrote:<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Is it possible to remove a surface region in pro/m? Thanks<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Konrad<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt; Yes.&nbsp; There is a group of features only visible in Pro/M,<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; unfortunately<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt; I don't recall the name of that group.&nbsp; Any geometry and<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; surface regions<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;&gt; defined in the mechanica environment can be found there.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt; Thanks Dave. That's Simulation Features and I didn't have a<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; right-click<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt; menu over my Surface Regions. After an investigation I found<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; that it was<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt; a family table instance, and the regions were set up in<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the Generic.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&gt; Konrad<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt; Interesting, thanks for the info.&nbsp; I would have tripped<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; over that<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; too.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; One more interesting info: Material assignments in parts were<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; meant to<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; be detected and used in assembly pro/m. Meshing goes good, but<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; sometimes<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; solver gets problems with stability of the structure. I got<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "the model<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; is insufficiently constrained for the analysis" error many times-<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and it<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was kinda hard to trace. It took me ages to discover this<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; bug. Now I<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; alway assign material at assembly level.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Konrad<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt; But then does the material assignment show up in Pro/e for model<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; analysis?<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Normally, when an assembly's part has its material assigned in part<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; only- you don't see the assignment icon on screen. The whole assembly<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; gets meshed. It wouldn't mesh if it didn't have the material. And it<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; gets calculated by the solver- but sometimes with error.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If you assign the material in the assembly- you have the yellow<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; material<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; icon attached to the part.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Konrad<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Sounds like the necessary and superior way to deal with material <BR>&gt; assignment for Pro/M. Historically, (don't know if it continued into the <BR>&gt; WF product) Pro/M and Pro/e came with separate and completely different <BR>&gt; material files. I always assumed that Pro/M's were the most official and <BR>&gt; reliable; Pro/e's seemed more like a do-it-yourself project as they were <BR>&gt; distributed in dozens of individual, customizable ASCII files. No one <BR>&gt; who used the Pro/e material files ever assumed they were correct; you <BR>&gt; always has to check them and they were often wrong by several decimal <BR>&gt; places, especially after they'd been around for a while and units had <BR>&gt; been changed back and forth a few times or the files had been manually <BR>&gt; edited without record. So, even to get a complete and accurate set of <BR>&gt; material files to use in Pro/e, I've taken to exporting Pro/M materials <BR>&gt; to Pro/e while in the system of units of choice. But, maybe this is <BR>&gt; unnecessary. Maybe the material definition "sticks" from Pro/M to Pro/e <BR>&gt; and I don't need to give it ANOTHER material assignment for Pro/e!?! <BR>&gt; Would be nice, anyway, if Pro/M's material assignment carried over into <BR>&gt; Pro/e.<BR><BR>Thank you Dave for the historical trait.<BR>The new philosophy is one material assignment for pro/e (mass, bend <BR>table etc) pro/m (young modulus, poisson's ratio etc), rendering <BR>(colours, decals etc). I would be happier to have possibility to enter <BR>Young modulus as a function of temperature, because I have now materials <BR>like "316L_forging_300F", "316L_forging_400F", 316L_forging_500F" and so <BR>on. Physically few grades, but in the end of the day it makes hundreds <BR>of material files.<BR>Konrad<BR><BR>PS for the issue of material not assigned in the analysed assembly in <BR>pro/m: sometimes it gives also "internal error" message without any <BR>closer explanation.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV><FONT face=Garamond>Don't know&nbsp;whether Pro/e-Pro/M will solve this problem of many material states (seems like&nbsp;a table&nbsp;ought to apply here). But I've heard that WF3 has at least unfied the material source files of the two modules. Hopefully your customizations can be imported into the database.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Garamond></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Garamond>David Janes</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
replying to KA, Rahman wrote:

where,s the family table ..pls. say.
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.