Community Tip - Your Friends List is a way to easily have access to the community members that you interact with the most! X
I need some help with using ProE skeletons.
We currently use skeletons in the models we create. Consider the following model tree:
ASM_X
ASM_X_SKEL
ASM_B
ASM_B_SKEL
ASM_C
ASM_C_SKEL
PART_F
ASM_Y
ASM_Y_SKEL
ASM_B
ASM_B_SKEL
ASM_D
ASM_C_SKEL
PART_G
In the model tree for ASM_X, PART_F is dependent on geometry from the ASM_B_SKEL and the ASM_C_SKEL. What is the best approach, I want to keep the geometry local to the respective assemblies but I need to have visibility of this geometry at the top level. I have 2 options:
Any help would be appreciated.
Solved! Go to Solution.
Depends, If I understand your structure correctly, ASM_B has a skeleton. Does this assembly have lower level parts. ASM_C has a skeleton, does this have any lower level parts.
You could at the top level assembly, ASM_X, insert both ASM_B skeleton and ASM_C skeleton. Config option to allow multiple skeletons. The last feature you want in your individual skeleton is a publish geom feature which includes what you want to control in each. Then you can activate PART F and copy the publish geom from ASM_B skeleton then ASM_C skeleton seperately. This will eliminate you copied data coming from two seperate assembly skeletons.
Hope this helps, we do this on everything.
Depends, If I understand your structure correctly, ASM_B has a skeleton. Does this assembly have lower level parts. ASM_C has a skeleton, does this have any lower level parts.
You could at the top level assembly, ASM_X, insert both ASM_B skeleton and ASM_C skeleton. Config option to allow multiple skeletons. The last feature you want in your individual skeleton is a publish geom feature which includes what you want to control in each. Then you can activate PART F and copy the publish geom from ASM_B skeleton then ASM_C skeleton seperately. This will eliminate you copied data coming from two seperate assembly skeletons.
Hope this helps, we do this on everything.
Hi Joseph,
I implemented what you suggested and this now appears to work correctly.
Thankyou for your input on this. Much appreciated.
Colm