Sheetmetal development; family table vs simplified...

nluyt · ‎Sep 11, 2014

Gurus...

I need to get your valuable input on which of these techniques to use;

Sheetmetal parts typically require you to show a developed view of the part (flat pattern) before it is formed (bends added).

As far as I'm aware, there are two ways of accomplishing this;

1. Create a flat pattern as your last feature and suppress that flat pattern so your part appears in its formed state in the assembly. Now you create a family table instance, and add the flat pattern feature to the table, and resume the feature for the flat instance, which you then show on the drawing / dxf, etc

2. Create flat pattern, create a simplified rep that excludes the flat pattern. Now you have a rep of the formed and flat model.

I grew up with the family table method, however I am at a stage where I have had it with family tables, and want to avoid them where I can.

Is it worth to switch?

Your thoughts please...?

Cheers

Norman

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.

ocorten-2 · ‎Sep 12, 2014

Most of our users have done the switch to SimpRep Flats and are very satisfied.

In our company the Flat Pattern is most of the time included as an information only sheet to the drawing.
So we don't need seperate revision control on the flat part. This reduces the need of a seperate PLM object.

The problem with the family table version is that users sometimes Revise the generic and foget the _flat instance.
Then there is no way to revise the instance as well (apart from removing the revised generic and then revise the generic and flat at the same time).

Kind regards,

Olaf Corten

Olaf Corten | CAD/PLM Manager

Besi Netherlands B.V. | Ratio 6| 6921RW Duiven| The Netherlands
T: +31 26 3196215 | M: +31 644548554
- | www.besi.com

From: Norman Luyt <->
To: -
Date: 12-09-2014 02:39
Subject: [proecad] - Sheetmetal development; family table vs simplified rep...?

Gurus...

I need to get your valuable input on which of these techniques to use;

Sheetmetal parts typically require you to show a developed view of the part (flat pattern) before it is formed (bends added).

As far as I'm aware, there are two ways of accomplishing this;

1. Create a flat pattern as your last feature and suppress that flat pattern so your part appears in its formed state in the assembly. Now you create a family table instance, and add the flat pattern feature to the table, and resume the feature for the flat instance, which you then show on the drawing / dxf, etc

2. Create flat pattern, create a simplified rep that excludes the flat pattern. Now you have a rep of the formed and flat model.

I grew up with the family table method, however I am at a stage where I have had it with family tables, and want to avoid them where I can.

Is it worth to switch?

Your thoughts please...?

Cheers
Norman

Site Links: View post online View mailing list online Start new thread via email Unsubscribe from this mailing list Manage your subscription

Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at:

DonSenchuk · ‎Sep 12, 2014

While we barely use sheetmetal here, I'll second what Olaf said about making the switch to SimpRep being fairly smooth and painless.

I'll agree except the part about revising instances. We run into that situation all the time with family tables and it is possible to revise instances without revising the generic or other instances. (Windchill PDMLink 10.1 just for reference.) When the entire FT shows up in the revise page, use the exclude button.

RandyJones · ‎Sep 12, 2014

On 09/11/14 19:39, Norman Luyt wrote:
>
> Gurus...
>
> I need to get your valuable input on which of these techniques to use;
>
> Sheetmetal parts typically require you to show a developed view of the part (flat pattern) before
> it is formed (bends added).
>
> As far as I'm aware, there are two ways of accomplishing this;
>
> 1. Create a flat pattern as your last feature and suppress that flat pattern so your part appears
> in its formed state in the assembly. Now you create a family table instance, and add the flat
> pattern feature to the table, and resume the feature for the flat instance, which you then show on
> the drawing / dxf, etc
>
> 2. Create flat pattern, create a simplified rep that excludes the flat pattern. Now you have a rep
> of the formed and flat model.
>
> I grew up with the family table method, however I am at a stage where I have had it with family
> tables, and want to avoid them where I can.
>
> Is it worth to switch?
>
> Your thoughts please...?
>

We still use family tables here however another possibility is to use an inheritance feature to
create the flat as follows:

1. create new sheetmetal part
2. insert inheritance feature using the formed part
3. create flat pattern

> Cheers
>
> Norman
>
>
> -----End Original Message-----

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Jones
Systems Administrator
Great Plains Mfg., Inc.
1525 E North St
PO Box 5060
Salina, KS USA 67401
email: -
Phone: 785-823-3276
Fax: 785-667-2695
------------------------------------------------------------------------

mlocascio · ‎Sep 12, 2014

Randy Jones,

Having had A LOT of experience in sheet metal practices I would suggest that
you create a formed version of the sheet metal part. Then create the flat
pattern as your last feature. It's not a sin to use a family table. PTC has
a done a wonderful job of giving us tools to use for different design
intent. This is one area where the family table shines. When you are
finished the flat pattern will be directly connected to your formed part and
visa versa. No sweat and no regret.

Michael P. Locascio

eslotty · ‎Sep 15, 2014

We've had some success creating a separate part for the flat, insert the formed part as an inheritance feature, then flatten the inherited feature... I was stunned this actually worked- at least it did in WF4....

It keeps the formed part clean and both parts can be added to the detail drawing if desired...

Have a good week...

Eric Slotty
-<">mailto:->
414-362-2552

magnus.salomons · ‎Sep 17, 2014

In Reply to Norman Luyt:

Gurus...

I need to get your valuable input on which of these techniques to use;

Sheetmetal parts typically require you to show a developed view of the part (flat pattern) before it is formed (bends added).

As far as I'm aware, there are two ways of accomplishing this;

1. Create a flat pattern as your last feature and suppress that flat pattern so your part appears in its formed state in the assembly. Now you create a family table instance, and add the flat pattern feature to the table, and resume the feature for the flat instance, which you then show on the drawing / dxf, etc

2. Create flat pattern, create a simplified rep that excludes the flat pattern. Now you have a rep of the formed and flat model.

I grew up with the family table method, however I am at a stage where I have had it with family tables, and want to avoid them where I can.

Is it worth to switch?

Your thoughts please...?

Cheers

Norman

Number 2 but we create an Unbend plus a Bend Back feature in the end. The Bend Back feature is excluded in the Flat Simp Rep state. We want to have the formed part as the default part.

The Flat Simp Rep is added to the Combined states under the All tab. Display Combined Views are checked. This means that you can toggle between the formed part Default All and the flat.

Secondly when you add views on the drawing the Select Combined State window that pops up will let you choose wether to show the formed or the flat part.

There's quite a few steps creating all the Reps so we have a mapkey for this.