Variant Drawing Sets

[JWayman]

Good morning,
I have an assembly, driven by skeleton and layout, using top-down design
principles.
As a result, I am able to define a number of sets of parameters (a, b, c,
etc.), each creating an assembly with the required dimensions.
I use this assembly, in state a, to create a Drawing set - Drawing a1, a2,
a3, etc.
If I then change the assembly to state b and regenerate, all my models and
drawings adjust to state b, as planned. However, if I save the assembly in
state b, I get a Drawing set with the parts in state b, but still called
Drawing a1, a2, a3, etc.
What I want is to be able to drive my assembly into different states
(shapes) and create a separate set of models and drawings for each state.
Drawing b1, b2, b3, c1, c2, c3, etc.
It's a case of using basically the same set of components, arranged in
slightly different shapes, to produce different products.
I thought I could use the Baseline function in Intralink to save things in
state a, then save things in state b, rename them, baseline them again and
choose which set I checked out. It doesn't work like that. Any Commonspace
rename works retrospectively, despite the baseline being saved with the
original names.

I have tried duplicating the whole assembly in Intralink, but it gets tied
up with dependencies.
I have tried save a copy in Pro/E, but that also struggles with
cross-references.



This has to be a common problem, to which I am just missing the simple
solution. Can you point me in the right direction?

Cheers,


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.

[RandyJones]

On 02/10/11 05:40, Wayman John wrote:
> Good morning,
> I have an assembly, driven by skeleton and layout, using top-down design
> principles.
> As a result, I am able to define a number of sets of parameters (a, b, c,
> etc.), each creating an assembly with the required dimensions.
> I use this assembly, in state a, to create a Drawing set - Drawing a1, a2, a3,
> etc.
> If I then change the assembly to state b and regenerate, all my models and
> drawings adjust to state b, as planned. However, if I save the assembly in
> state b, I get a Drawing set with the parts in state b, but still called
> Drawing a1, a2, a3, etc.
> What I want is to be able to drive my assembly into different states (shapes)
> and create a separate set of models and drawings for each state. Drawing b1,
> b2, b3, c1, c2, c3, etc.
> It's a case of using basically the same set of components, arranged in
> slightly different shapes, to produce different products.
> I thought I could use the Baseline function in Intralink to save things in
> state a, then save things in state b, rename them, baseline them again and
> choose which set I checked out. It doesn't work like that. Any Commonspace
> rename works retrospectively, despite the baseline being saved with the
> original names.
> I have tried duplicating the whole assembly in Intralink, but it gets tied up
> with dependencies.
> I have tried save a copy in Pro/E, but that also struggles with cross-references.
> This has to be a common problem, to which I am just missing the simple
> solution. Can you point me in the right direction?

Family tables would be one possible solution. This is the kind of scenarios that
work good with family tables.

> Cheers,
>
> "> <">>
>

--

[dougweaver]

John,

Family tables will definitely work for this. The key is to FT the skeleton model and create a corresponding FT structure in your generic assembly. It's preferable to have all the variants (parameters) defined in the skeleton. You should be able to produce the variant assembly drawings by cloning the drawing of the generic and then swapping the drawing model with the instance. I have used this process often and it works well for me.

I experimented with Layout years ago but soon found that I could convey the same design intent using skeletons. I am not sure how (or if) Layout works with FTs.

If done correctly you should be able to open multiple versions of your assembly (and assembly drawings) in session concurrently, each showing the proper variations. If that test works you will have no issues with Intralink.