Problem with "patterened" patterns!!!

[DELETEME]

Well, at first I liked the ability to "pattern" patterns. But, the more I sue it, the less I like it. I've had serious issues with this, from getting really weird results, to components NOT reference patterning, to the axiis on dwgs not showing up right, to assembly cuts using these "patterened" patterns not working at all. I have a pattern of 4 holes for a hinge, and a pattern of 3 of those for 3 hinges. 've tried to ues these holes as reference for an assy cut thru the hinges (hinges sold without holes for weld or match-drill at assy) and I'm having serious issues with fasteners not patterning correctly using any of these references. Like I said it seems like a really nice feature, but I think I might avoid it like the plague from now on with the 8hrs work it's cost me in this case. Anyone else seeing strange things?
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.

[Kevin]

The biggest thing I've noticed is that we get assembly cut features as a pattern at the assembly level but are individual features if shown at the part level. Not sure if that might be causing the problem since I don't use it frequently.

[DELETEME]

"Kevin Demarco" wrote:

The biggest thing I've noticed is that we get assembly cut features as a pattern at the assembly level but are individual features if shown at the part level. Not sure if that might be causing the problem since I don't use it frequently.

[ArisTroulis]

Make sure the assembly cuts are set to part level and the appropriate assembly from the family table is on memory.

[DELETEME]

"Aris Troulis" wrote:

Make sure the assembly cuts are set to part level and the appropriate assembly from the family table is on memory.

[ArisTroulis]

"Aris Troulis" wrote:

Make sure the assembly cuts are set to part level and the appropriate assembly from the family table is on memory.

[DELETEME]

"Aris Troulis" wrote:

Make sure the assembly cuts are set to part level and the appropriate assembly from the family table is on memory.

[DELETEME]

All I can say is if you're using patterend patterns, expect serious issues constraining things downstream. The assy cut feature would NOT reference pattern correctly, and I had to just create a patterend pattern using dims and asy relations to control the dims. Then, I couldn't even constrain the fasteners to the assy cuts, I had to constrain them to the holes underneath that were created at the part level. Anyone else see strange stuff using this? Caveat emptor

[Kevin]

I tried playing around with things a little more found some strange things that I was able to correct. I post them when I get the chance (probably tomorrow or Monday) to see if you're having the same issues.

[DELETEME]

I'm on WF3, M210 I wonder if the "persistence error - contact PTC" problem I was having the other day is related to this. I'd originally constrained a bunch of fasteners to the holes created in the part via patterned patterns as flexible parts. I later had to remove the flexibility of these parts as it FUBAR'd my BOMS up. I was unable to check the top-level assy (where the assy cuts were made for the hinges) and got that error. I finally had to undo checkout (wiping a couple days work out) and had to again remove the flexibility from everything, delete all the patterns of the cuts and fasteners, and redo everything. Now it checks into PDMLink no worse than checking anything else into there. I think there might be a bad connection between the patterns and flexible parts and PDMLing having (more) issuesz with it.

[Kevin]

I saw a few strange things but was able to correct them. I ended up with fastener head with no bodies in one. Turned out that assembly hole was adding the fastener to the intersected parts list. When I tried to remove it and turned off automatic update the patterns failed. I had to delete the patterns and recreate them. I found I could create a patterned pattern of holes in one part, create an assembly hole and reference pattern it, and I could use insert to place fasteners. If I just created an assembly hole and made a patterned pattern, only the first group of patterned holes would regenerate with fasteners the others would fail. To get fasteners to regenerate with the other hole groups I had to use align for the axes of the leader hole and fastener. I didn't have any problems with the axes showing up on a drawing.

[DELETEME]

"Kevin Demarco" wrote:

I saw a few strange things but was able to correct them. I ended up with fastener head with no bodies in one. Turned out that assembly hole was adding the fastener to the intersected parts list. When I tried to remove it and turned off automatic update the patterns failed. I had to delete the patterns and recreate them. I found I could create a patterned pattern of holes in one part, create an assembly hole and reference pattern it, and I could use insert to place fasteners. If I just created an assembly hole and made a patterned pattern, only the first group of patterned holes would regenerate with fasteners the others would fail. To get fasteners to regenerate with the other hole groups I had to use align for the axes of the leader hole and fastener. I didn't have any problems with the axes showing up on a drawing.

[Kevin]

A reference pattern for a patterned pattern is a little different. When you initially create the reference pattern it uses the feature reference (the first group of 4). There are two parts to the pattern, feature and group. If you edit the definition of the reference pattern it should show feature in a drop down box. If you select group what you should end up with is the first instance in each of the groups (in your case you should see three holes, one from each group and should be a instance of the pattern leader). If you select both you should see three groups of four holes. I have not tried to mirror them.

[DELETEME]

"Kevin Demarco" wrote:

A reference pattern for a patterned pattern is a little different. When you initially create the reference pattern it uses the feature reference (the first group of 4). There are two parts to the pattern, feature and group. If you edit the definition of the reference pattern it should show feature in a drop down box. If you select group what you should end up with is the first instance in each of the groups (in your case you should see three holes, one from each group and should be a instance of the pattern leader). If you select both you should see three groups of four holes. I have not tried to mirror them.

[Kevin]

Okay, I wasn't sure you were using the both option.

[ptc-2512492]

The trick in using this ability is to ensure that EVERYTHING in your pattern is "referenced" to what you're patterning. That means that you need to create datums "on the fly" to reference your "inner pattern" off of, group those with the features, and then do the higher-level pattern using that group, not just the lower-level feature pattern. Think of it as a tree structure. Remember, every feature you're working with is a pattern of SOMETHING... the problems you're seeing come up when you end up with references (dimensional, alignment, etc) which are looking at multiple "levels." If you ensure that everything is only looking at the appropriate level for all it's definition, you won't get the "weirdness" you're experiencing. I, personally, prefer to use "classic sketcher" because it does not create "autodimensiong" or "auto-constraining." I prefer to work through the entire dimensioning and constraining process manually, every single time. I suspect that... "auto-dim" and "auto-constrain" are what are causing your issues.

[DELETEME]

"Cary Brown" wrote:

The trick in using this ability is to ensure that EVERYTHING in your pattern is "referenced" to what you're patterning. That means that you need to create datums "on the fly" to reference your "inner pattern" off of, group those with the features, and then do the higher-level pattern using that group, not just the lower-level feature pattern. Think of it as a tree structure. Remember, every feature you're working with is a pattern of SOMETHING... the problems you're seeing come up when you end up with references (dimensional, alignment, etc) which are looking at multiple "levels." If you ensure that everything is only looking at the appropriate level for all it's definition, you won't get the "weirdness" you're experiencing. I, personally, prefer to use "classic sketcher" because it does not create "autodimensiong" or "auto-constraining." I prefer to work through the entire dimensioning and constraining process manually, every single time. I suspect that... "auto-dim" and "auto-constrain" are what are causing your issues.

[ptc-1679159]

The thing with flexibility, parametricity, and all the other tools that supposedly makes your life easier actually works against productivity because by the time you set all the parameters and what-not up, you find that some changes screws the "children" up so bad you need to redo everything, or don't use them at all. That usually happens when you're on top of the learning curve, damn. The weirder thing is, why are Part, Assembly and DWG so UI integrated but other modules like NC, Mechanica, and other less used features (e.g: helica sweep) so 2001-ish? Surely 8 years of development from 2001 to 4.0 would have seen most of these inconsistencies disappear???

[Kevin]

Did you try creating a patterned pattern of axis features using ryour realations to control the spacing of those and reference pattern the assembly holes or cuts? Not sure it will work but I did find that creating a patterned pattern of assembly holes at the assembly level and trying to reference pattern screws to them caused problems.