Skip to main content
D
dgschaefer21-Topaz II
21-Topaz II
May 20, 2010
Question

only ASM's

  • May 20, 2010
  • 13 replies
  • 2423 views
If you do sheet metal parts, you frequently run into a situation where a
part suddenly became an assy due to added PEM fasteners. If you start
as an assy, you can add what you want without hosing your drawing.

I don't think there's going to be a Pro|E way to accomplish this. Maybe
a company policy that the one who creates such a drawing must fix it on
his own time when it needs to be turned into an assy later. 😄

Doug Schaefer

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.

13 replies

Show previous replies
W
wfalco16-Pearl
16-Pearl
May 20, 2010

Helicoils is a good example for machined parts.

T
TimMcLellan12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
May 23, 2010
Drawing replace unrelated with the ability to map part dimensions automatically to component levels (dxx:xx) would be a GREAT enhancement.



Tim McLellan
Mobius Innovation and Development, Inc.
P
ptc-52484391-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 24, 2010
Another solution for PTC would be to get rid of separate part and assembly file types. Or simply enable part models to have a bill of material.
I am not suggesting “multi-body” parts where a single part model is used to define more than one solid part (as some other cad systems can do.) I am suggesting, though, that any part model can have a bill of material which would help with PDM. For instance, someone mentioned machined parts with helicoils. Or what about paint, grease, etc. It would be unnecessary for there to be two files for every part if these “bulk items” could be added to the part model. It is not like they are assembled with constraints. Of course, with the PEM example, the PEM could be assembled. But again, wouldn’t it be simpler if you could assemble the PEM to the part model and not create an assembly model just to do that? When checked-in to PDMLink, the corresponding WTPart would have an appropriate bill of material. (So we create one .prt and one WTpart instead of a .asm and a .prt and two WTParts.)

Just another thought….


Michael Mongilio
Engineering Applications Manager
ATK Space Systems, Beltsville, MD

Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement