Skip to main content
J
John.Pryal1-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 21, 2013
Question

Simplified rep issue

  • May 21, 2013
  • 3 replies
  • 3633 views

Hi,

i have 2 models assembled together, & want to make a cut out, one model from the other leaving a cavity. The model i want to make an impression of has a simplified rep. In the assembly tree, i set the user defined rep i want & i see it take affect, but when i make the cut out it seems to default back to the master rep, meaning i don't get the cavity i want. Any reason why this is happening?

Regards

John


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.

3 replies

T
TomD.inPDX17-Peridot
17-Peridot
May 21, 2013

Simplified reps are not family tables. They are highly unstable when it comes to manipulating geometry. I have found reps that save one way and open back up in another state. The problem is that Creo allows you to operate on the reps and it follows the suppressed states of certain features. But a master rep cannot maintain these features suppressed by other reps for some reason.

You will likely need family tables to manage what you are trying to do.

J
John.Pryal1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
May 23, 2013

Hi Antonius,

this is such a shame, i was hoping to use the simp rep approach. I don't feel i can use family tables here, because i am working with models & drawings supplied by my customer, & they don't use them, so i am hesitant to go down that route, for fear of them getting into difficulty managing family tables, verifying instances, updating the xpr files etc.

It just blows my mind that you can not do this, 17 years working with Pro-e & it still throws up surprises, i have worked with simplified reps for years, but never, until now, wanted to make a component cut-out.

Regards

John

B
BillRyan16-Pearl
16-Pearl
June 4, 2013

I concur with your resistance to create a family table! There are quite a few downstream issues associated with them. Also, most users recommend against assembly cuts. However, there are manufacturing cases where cuts need to be made after the supplier delivers an assembly. We have tried simplified reps, but have only been able to use Family Tables and accepted the downstream issues.

J
James621-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 21, 2013

Wow, I think the only way to do this is to make a dummy feature, like a copied surface, in the first model, just to reference it to a second model.

Then make the cutout in the second model, and hide this dummy feature in the first model.

I doubt you can make this work with simp reps, maybe just with family tables.

V
vzak12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
June 4, 2013

John

When you apply any operation on non-master representation (I guess Cutout over a component in a part-level simprep) what Creo does - it sets the operated component automatically to master Rep to allow performing this operation. This is governed by On - Demand Simprep settings in assembly settings. So from your description I understand you end up with Master Rep of component (lets call it CUTOUT_TARGET.PRT), and I also guess your top assembly simpre gets a small ( + ) sign which means it was on-demand modified, again to allow your requested operation.

So after you perform Cutout operation, try following 2 steps to get back on track :

1. Open View Manager, re - activate top assembly simprep you are in. It will set back your CUTOUT_TARGET.PRT to an initial simprep.

2. In order to see new cutout visible on this part level simprep, regenerate assembly. Cutout should appear. This additional regeneration is needed since part level simpreps utilize family table technology, where switching to an instance also requires regeneration to propogate latest changes done to generic model in session.

Let me know if this is not exactly what you try to achieve, or if you are not getting the described result.

J
John.Pryal1-VisitorAuthor
1-Visitor
June 5, 2013

Hi Vladimir,

i could not get this to work. I don't know if i am following your instructions correctly or whether this cannot be done. Like Antonius pointed out, reps are not family tables. Maybe the result i'm after, is not possible.

Regards

John

Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement