Was this question ever answered? We have the same question coming up at our facility but for only 1000 parts. Are there performance issues when you get to these volumes?
Do you REALLY need all those instances? Or, can you simple make the part with flexible parameters, and use that flexibility at assembly to fill out a repeat region BOM? This will give you everything you need to fill out a BOM, without the HUGE baggage.
I've made some pretty large family table, but not even close to 1000 instances, let alone 4320!
Best of luck!
Look at the D38999 mil spec connectors. I'm guessing thousands of variations are in there. Factors like shell size, insert arrangement, unique indexing, and maybe finish (it's been a while.)
I would not try to build them all, but having them in a family table to capture the ones that are used means that one can easily select by characteristics to see that the correct item is being assembled and allow easy updates to all of them when updates to the spec occur or as more sophisticated use of the connectors is introduced into the organization (such as using the routed systems software.)
I can't link directly to the spec; the military keeps them behind a database server, but you can search for them on assistdocs.com: Basic Search using the doc -number- 38999. It's a big enough group it's broken into a base doc and a number of slash docs that are more specific.
Look at what you plan on doing and ask yourself "Which instances might I replace with another one?"
As an example, you may substitute a different length bolt for another and maybe diameter/thread, but would you replace a shoulder bolt for a normal bolt. Put your hex head bolts in one table, socket head cap screws in another and shoulder bolts in a third.
Make family tables with the replacement criteria in mind and that should limit the size of the table as well as make it easier for the users to get the proper item in their assembly.
Great point. Unfortunately our scenario is a bit more complex as we are looking at family tables of assemblies. Each level of the build has the potential for dozens of configurations.
This may or may not be the best way to structure these variances. To date it is the best way we knew to do it. I am open to suggestions if someone else has experience with building assemblies with a high number of configurations.
There are better methods to use. It's been years since I've worked with something like you're talking about (multiple levels, each level having dozens [!] of configurations so I don't want to steer you into the wrong path. But I'm certainly willing to steer you out of the wrong path.
I would HIGHLY recommend NOT using family tables for that purpose. You will quickly run into a lot of problems that could have been avoided. For anything except the tiniest assemblies with at most a couple of levels deep, family tables for assembly structure variances will be a disaster. Hopefully it's not too late to change to a better method. In addition, hopefully someone with more recent experience at multiple configurations can provide an outline on a better way to do this.
Like Don said, it is not the best emthod for ehat you are trying to do.
Creo has Assembly Configurations, I think that is right (NX calls them Arrangements), that allow you to setup your assemblies for each configurable option.
Family Tables and Simplified Reps are not the right options, so steering you clear of those.