Not too bothered as its reasonbly simply and didn't take long to rebuild...... but it did start me thinking about models which fail which are built on a more Top Down design approach.
I do a lot of modeling 'in situ', 'Insert>Component>Create', assemble the blank component, do 'Activate' and start creating features. Sometimes I reference other component geometry, sometimes I use it as just a visual reference, to get the scale right. But, when I reference other component geometry, I usually go into the newly created part and delete the external references, pick new ones inside the part. Sometimes, when I want the clearance hole in 'Part B' to follow the tapped hole in 'Part A', I'll leave them tied together, so B moves automatically when A does. Depends on your design intent
If I think about some of my more complex surface models which I generally build in the assembly where the parts are completely intertwined through the assembly and various ref geom in it the idea of the asm file failing could present a few hours rebuilding.
It's not just failing, it's whether you actually mean, intend, for some very good reason, that the geometry between two parts be tied together, linked, associative. There's a lot of associativity built into Pro/e but it can come back to bite you when you're not aware of the dependcies you're creating. However, the unwanted ones can, fortunately, be gotten rid of.
Any thoughts? What's the 'suggested' method for ensuring you can get out of an asm failure? I think I'll start keeping the later version files a bit longer than I usually do.
Become a close friend of the Assembly Resolve Mode! It's a bacon saver, gets your fat out of the fire when you know how to use it.
David Janes