Skip to main content
MattWright1-Visitor
1-Visitor
August 4, 2011
Solved

Cabling sans Pro/Piping

  • August 4, 2011
  • 3 replies
  • 2648 views

My company produces flexible waveguide yet does not have Pro/Piping. A length of flexible waveguide is named <Size>-<Length> in our BOM and ERP system because the form operation is a function of the top assembly. Currently, I am creating a custom part, naming it generically, and 'hiding' it from Pro E by putting it into a private folder outside of the search path. This cannot be optimal.

I have looked into flexible components, and though admittedly I don't have much experience with them, the only solution I see would involve creating a modifiable spline. But I cannot predict the number of bends or in what plane they would be, so this would require almost 'hot swapping' a point field, which I don't even know if that is possible.

At the end of the day, I just need a solution which works and provides incentive to model accurately; I would appreciate any ideas and solutions which others have found useful. If Pro/Piping is the way to go, (and if that supports something other than a hollow circle), then maybe someone could enlighten me on how I would approach the ROI to get that module purchased.

Thanks in advance,

Matt Wright


This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.
Best answer by MikeFitch

I use bulk items extensively as well, but the method outlined above allows you to create a drawing of the item; in my case, the cable are almost always terminated, so I need the cable drawing itself to call out lugs, heat shrink, etc.

I think I've done something similar to what you're describing as well: I used to add a bulk item and then create a separate assembly with the same name to draw up. The pitfall with this approach was that when an exploded BOM report was run, the cable components were not included.

3 replies

MikeFitch1-Visitor
1-Visitor
August 5, 2011

I've created them as straight wires and used 'symbolic representation' to hide the geometry on drawings. This gets the BOM callouts taken care of, but the positioning is obviously not explicit...

MattWright1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
August 5, 2011

Thanks for the tip. Here's my though process:

1. You are basically adding a placeholder to the BOM

2. This can also be accomplished via a Bulk Item

3. With the bulk item, you don't even have to model anything (it's simply a parameter list)

Now, that takes care of getting the correct callout in the BOM, and out of the model, so we can model a custom formed component, naming it, say <assembly>-<subcomponent> and Filter>By Item to remove that from the auto-bom.

Done. Simple and elegant, I like it!

Would the bulk item idea simplify work for you?

Thanks for getting my over the hump!

Matt Wright

MikeFitch1-VisitorAnswer
1-Visitor
August 5, 2011

I use bulk items extensively as well, but the method outlined above allows you to create a drawing of the item; in my case, the cable are almost always terminated, so I need the cable drawing itself to call out lugs, heat shrink, etc.

I think I've done something similar to what you're describing as well: I used to add a bulk item and then create a separate assembly with the same name to draw up. The pitfall with this approach was that when an exploded BOM report was run, the cable components were not included.

Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement