cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - Did you get an answer that solved your problem? Please mark it as an Accepted Solution so others with the same problem can find the answer easily. X

external refs

jimboshieldo
1-Visitor

external refs

Hi,Sorry, let me start over,

I normally don't use external references, mainly because of advise from a PTC consultant years ago.

Are external references easier to use now compared to 8 years ago?

Do mostProE designers use external references? And how are the managed if you start to have conflicts?

Thanks,

Jim Shields

Design Drafter Specialist

DRS C3 & Aviation Group

A Finmeccanica Company

767 Electronic Drive, Suite A

Horsham, Pa. 19044

215.242.7359

<u>shields@drs-c3.com</u>


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.
5 REPLIES 5

It sounds like your PTC "expert" scared you away from the "evil" of external references and its stuck with you. The reason the AE's got people scared off linking things was a combination of slow computer speed relative to regen time and the fact the explicit tools to manage them, as I will explain, were not up to snuff. As in many systems, the greatest strengthscan bethe greatest weaknesses. Pro/E is such a system. External References, and all their "evil" deedswere never the real issue...the issue was the mis-use and over-use of them got MANY people in trouble from Pro/E's inception. People painted themselves into the proverbial CAD corner by linking things in ways the caused a number of issues...circular references, slow regens, missing components, relation failures etc...

For years the "missing" link was a way to explicitly manage the "external refs". they were somewhat "hidden" from the novice user. In other words, it was kind of like the wild west in the CAD world when Pro/E hit the street...lots of opportunity without the Law Man around that led to abuse and mis-use. All that "functionality" without a lot of experience led to performance issuesand horrendous modeling practices. It was something that has been addressed over the years.That is why we have PubGeom and ECG's, assembly scope settings,envelopes, simplified reps and other management toolstoday. All the functions are pretty much the same today as they were back in earlier revs now with explicit (managed and named) control. Many of us were using skeleton "methodology" before there wassuch a thing as askeleton model. Also, copying things from file to another has always been available in some fashion or another. We did it implicitly for a number of years using the master merge commands in Assembly and propagating changes back to the part level. These were "external references" that allowed thechanges to affect all the parts.Essentially the pre-cursor to Top Down Design as it's done today. As I said the earlier, the risk then was not being able to manage some of theexternal refsexplicitly. As the software evolved the "new" functionality to handle the association between parts and assemblies was added I.E Pubs and ECG's.

So, don't be scared of the "External Reference"...use it to your advantage. Skeletons, PubGeom, ECG's are your friends. Although I will caution you that over-using them can get out of hand. Pick and choose your battles and apply the functionalitywisely. I still see many people employing the functionality in ways that actually become counter-productive.

Hope it helps.


Thank you Dean! That was too long overdue.

Hi Jim,

The term "external refs" can mean different things. If you are referring to Skeletons and Publish Geom then I would say thatthey are absolutely essential sooner or later. If you are referring to using a next higher assembly to position a subassembly without Skeletons and Publish Geom then you are looking for problems. Also, be aware that the average user is terrified of the word "Skeleton". I have seen users refuse to work on assemblies with skeletons in them, and I have even seen a CAD manual forbid their use because of terrified users. In fact, I tend to think of skeleton use as the defining difference between average and advanced users. Because of this, you are going to get beginner users messing up your skeletons and references. Also, sooner or later, you are going to have to clean up other people's illegal external references. I had one case where an assembly with external references was copied to a different name. When this happens, Pro/E creates new assemblies and parts that are to become your new external references. These parts are named PRT0001 and ASM0001. If these are checked in and "PRT0001" already exists in your database, (just because it is forbidden, doesn't mean it doesn't happen) your assembly may loop continuously and we call it "corrupt" because it often doesn't open anymore. I hate that! Just need to create dummy "prt0001" parts to fool Pro/E and you should be able to crack it open. Also, excessive circular references and external references can be the difference between your top assembly opening in 30 minutes or 8 hours. I have seen it... not a pretty sight. So the answer you are looking for is: Designate a Skeleton / Publish Geom expert and make sure he sits down with users that haven't touched them before. Also beware of Copy Geom. They work great the first couple of times then they tend to lose their references. Use them as a temporary reference. Then freeze the dependent components and delete your Copy Geom's before check in.

Merry ChristmaChanuKwanzzicah!

Frederick Burke

Mr. Dean Long,



I appreciate you taking the time to write this. Sometimes it takes this kind
of clarification to get our users to think outside of the box.



Oddly enough I have been in places where the least common denominator
determined just how high I could go. In other words I was told to keep it
simple. So for me to employ external refs and surfaces may have been too
much for some of our users. I will admit that simple is better. That way one
does not need a manual to figure out how to tweak the model in the future.



Your words of caution are well put. Design intent and function need to be
considered along the way.



Everything was well put.



Michael P. Locascio


Hi Dean and community,

Nice explanation Dean.

Our experience was that we had used Layout before specific Skeleton
functionality in TDD was introduced. Heard about Master Modelling technique
but did not use it as that was after the start of a long major project.

We embraced Top Down Design with Skeleton models as soon as this was
available (2000i?) and this really suits the assemblies we work with (Layout
was a dog to work with). One thing I have not seen mentioned is the use of
the Skeleton as the only assembly reference. As I see it the Skeleton can
be used in two ways.

- The first method is to assemble a new part at the default location and
use Copy Geom to refer to Publish Geoms in the Skeleton. This also allows
use of space claims from the Skeleton. This first method works really well
and is very robust. We use it a lot.
- The second and less talked about method is to use the Skeleton to
assemble stand alone parts. A screw would be an example of such a part. We
assemble the screw to an axis and a datum or surface in the Skeleton so that
no matter what parts in an assembly are suppressed the assembly always
works. The space claims in a Skeleton can be checked when a stand alone
part is assembled. For complex assemblies this method is very good
functionality.

Maybe we are OK as all our users work from concept to production so there is
no "over the fence" to somebody who is not familiar with this way of
working.

Of course there are some drawbacks with the Skeleton method. The most
common complaint I see posted (not from us) is that you don't get dimensions
to "show" in drawings. This has never bothered us as we don't have any hang
up with creating dimensions and in any case most of our parts cannot be
dimensioned from one Feature (think 3D organic shapes).

Hopefully this adds some information to the discussion.


Regards, Brent Drysdale
Senior Mechanical Designer
Tait Radio Communications
New Zealand
DDI +64 3 358 1093
www.taitradio.com


Announcements
NEW Creo+ Topics: Real-time Collaboration


Top Tags