Skip to main content
S
smorris1-Visitor
1-Visitor
November 10, 2016
Question

How to Add Many Components to an Assembly at Once?

  • November 10, 2016
  • 2 replies
  • 12157 views

Include only supports one component at a time via UI or drag-n-drop?

I have a folder full of parts. I want them all in the same assembly for organization purposes. I know I can create a mapkey to assemble them all one-by-one, but I'd really like to know why I cannot drag-n-drop or use Include on more than one component at a time. This seems like a simple request and something that most other CAD systems can do without issue.

Anyone has thoughts on the easiest way to get a folder or folder structure of parts all into a single assembly?


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.

2 replies

D
dschenken1-Visitor
1-Visitor
November 11, 2016

I would create a VBA routine that creates a mapkey or trail file that does the import. Alternatively, check Jose Costa and his Trailmaker utility See the end of Re: Trailmaker 0.3

The reason you cannot do this with drag-and-drop is that PTC did not include that function. Reading some of the posts on 'the old new thing' on the MS blog will show that even Microsoft doesn't have every function available for every case imaginable. It's a good read for understanding how Windows and Windows development works, but also looks at the tradeoffs software developers have to make. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/

    T
    TomD.inPDX17-Peridot
    17-Peridot
    November 12, 2016

    David, couldn't Pro|Program do an assembly of an entire folder of parts with a fairly simple script?

    Scott, you can do a lot of dragging around of parts and you can even get things to drag around together if they are so constrained.

    Nothing keeps you from having clusters of parts constrained to each other and let them move around by dragging.

    This is a typical application for mechanism constraints.

    Why drag around all that graphics data of parts simply strewn around when you are making a new assembly?

    Why bother having all the geometry in the way when you are trying to find mating faces or features?

    Tip, you can open all the parts in memory so you can easily select them during the install operation in case of a large library to traverse.

    D
    dschenken1-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    November 12, 2016

    Pro/Program isn't a scripting language. It is a variant of relations.

    The drag-and-drop is to pick a file from a Windows explorer window and drag the icon over the Creo window, which Creo is programmed to recognize as a short cut for open or assemble.

    T
    TomD.inPDX17-Peridot
    17-Peridot
    November 12, 2016

    Two methods:

    Use dynamic assembly constraints and patterns, better yet, reference pattern.

    Pre-defining mating interfaces at the part level also helps the selection process.

    I find the dynamic assembly constraints to be quite useful.  They do not require anything other than a config.pro change.

    Breaking out of "assumed" mating conditions on the second install of a component is simple.

    You insert and constrain...insert and constrain... but the install component feature remembers your last installed component, so this also helps to quickly add multiple part.

    It is just a little different way of thinking.

      R
      rmcboaty1-Visitor
      1-Visitor
      November 18, 2016

      dynamic assembly constraints and patterns


      what are those? and how do you change the config.pro?

      T
      TomD.inPDX17-Peridot
      17-Peridot
      November 18, 2016

      You can define component interfaces intended for assembly references.  Makes picking and mating decisions easier.  "Dynamic" is likely the wrong term for this.

      Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement