curious about Layouts

Not extensively, but layouts have their uses.

The use I've seen as valuable is as a repository of dimension values. Any item with a non-basic dimension can be linked to the layout value and maintain an independent tolerance. Skeletons and the like replace dimensions in a model and remove the referring model related tolerance. To ensure a fit between a hole and a shaft, the layout can carry the nominal size and the hole and shaft can still carry their tolerances. If using a skeleton between the two parts, the hole and shaft would be driven directly and have no associated tolerance on size. Or there is a relation required between the skeleton value and the feature dimension value, which is the same as the somewhat bad part of using a layout.

When a layout is viewed as a replacement or supplement for a sketch or a drawing, it seems poor in comparison. If viewed as a schematic where notes can explain the use of the values, they are a decent solution when the problem needs tight coupling only to values and not to geometry.

I would argue the suggestion that 3D graphical methods more robust for what layouts cover than layouts themselves. It isn't possible to alter a layout so that it doesn't regenerate, but the same is not so true for skeletons. Beyond that, it depends on the work one is doing to determine the value of any method.

Dave S.

In Reply to Dean Long:

Hi all,

Just curious....

Layouts have been around since the beginning of Pro, promoted asa way to bridge the gap from 2D usersto the 3D users. Personally, I usedlayouts very early on in Pro...then as skels, Pubs and ECGsbecame more useful, better and easier, I abandoned their use.

Now that most of us are familiar and comfortable with3D and more robust, graphical methods are available, do you still uselayouts extensively?

John,

(Replying in the forums just to keep readers up to date; I keep replying directly to user emails instead of posting.)

One can drive any number of parts and assemblies from a drawing in the same manner as a layout. It requires adding more models to the drawing, but after that the user can create tablesto drive dimensions and parameters in the parts and assemblies. I think a unique table has to be created for each part or assembly individually (while that part is active in the drawing, no less). If a user wants it to look like a single table,it's an easy enough taskto fakemultiple tables into looking like a single table. I'm unsure about tying a bunch of part features together through relations, and that brings me to the next point.

Thinking on it a bit more, it might even be most beneficial to have this type of drawing driving a skeleton, then the skeleton drives individual piece parts and assemblies. In this manner, all the relations used to drive dimensions across many different parts are located within the skeleton. When entries on the drawing table(s) are modified, the skeleton changes, driving any parts or assemblies tied to that skeleton. Though, I must admit, this is something I haven't tried, so I could be way off.

Having read Dean's summary, the resource allocation is an important point. Really big assemblies still have the ability to strain current workstations. Using the drawing method, users are most likely going to have views already established, which means pulling the entire assembly into session.

Regards,

Don

In Reply to John Wayman:

Don,
That's true to a certain extent. The (I think) important difference is that
one Drawing can drive one assembly or one part, whilst one Layout can drive
any number of assemblies or parts. Therein lies the power of the Layout.
Therein also lies the issue, since creating a layout is an even less
pleasurable experience than creating a drawing.

Regards,


John