Family tables: a way to turn off features in the father part

[tleati]

Hallo,

I would like to create a family table where the instances have some features (as holes for instance) that must not be present in the father, because the father is the rough product from which all the variations (with various features representing the machining processes) are obtained.

Is there a way to do this? I know that the features are 'turn-offable' in the single instances, but I can't find anything that allows me to deactivate them in the father, except for "hide" and "suppress" (options that I would avoid).

thanks

Bye

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.

[Patriot_1776]

They need to be "resumed" in order to place them in the family table in the first place, but after you get the table set up, you can suppress ALL the features if they are in the table somewhere.  I've done models where only the "skeleton" curves and surfaces I sued to define the solid features are resumed in the generic, and all the solid features are resumed in the different instances.

[dschenken · Accepted solution]

Features created in instances are automatically suppressed in the generic. You can edit the family table in the generic if the feature is needed in other instances.

This allows adding items that are incompatible with each other and so cannot all be resumed at the same time in the generic.

[Patriot_1776]

Is this new???  I'm still on creo elements/pro 5.0.  To suppress them in the generic you have to do it manually.  I actually don't like the idea of it suppressing everything unless I want it to.

[John.Pryal]

I do not think this is new, i work in Creo 3 & Creo elements/pro 5. Most of my master models were developed in elements/pro 5 & i have plenty of family table stuff with instances that have additional features not required on the generic, i am as sure as i can be, that David's answer is correct.

Regards

John

[Patriot_1776]

I meant the "automatic" part.  In some models, I suppress almost everything in the generic, but I'm forced to do it manually.  I'm wondering if in creo 3 if it's been made automatic.  If so, I do not like that.  I want the choice.

[tleati]

Hi Frank,

what David meant was that, once you create a FT, if you then open an instance and do features on it, they do not affect the generic at all: the generic has only the features you created in itself -> if with "automatically" you mean that these instance-level created features by default do not reflect in the generic, yes you are right. But if you want the choice: if you want a feature on the generic, you create it in the generic, otherwise you create it on an instance only --> in the family table the new feature appears but with a NO for the generic:

Bye

[Patriot_1776]

Ah, ok, I see what you mean.

I'd use caution with that, especially if you're using a bunch of instances.  I think it's better to do the work in the generic.  I put all the instance features in the same area in the tree, and use annotation features to separate them like a bookmark.  I also use that annotation feature in the FT as a bookmark.

[tleati]

Hi Frank,

thanks for your reply.

bye

[tleati]

Thanks to both of you, your suggestions were both useful! I think David's one fits my case better, as it's more confortable to make the features directly in the instance: I would like to use the FT with the generic as the rough piece father (don't know exactly how to call it in english) from which different machined products derive.

It would be even more comfortable to have a sort of function that recognizes that one part can be an instance of a generic and then convert them in a FT, because in this case If I already modeled the two parts (generic and instance) separately, I would have to do a FT from zero to have them as a FT.

bye