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

Community Tip - You can subscribe to a forum, label or individual post and receive email notifications when someone posts a new topic or reply. Learn more! X

Assembly-relationship

ptc-2268715
1-Newbie

Assembly-relationship

Assembly structure infinite loop Assembly 1 -Subassembly -Component 1 -Component 2 Subassembly -Assembly 1 -component 3 -component 4 Above infinite loop between Assembly & Subassembly happened, when I open Intralink modify relationship. I try to remove Assembly 1 underneath Subassembly in Intralink, but I cannot. It told me the relationship was not created through Intralink. When I open Subassembly in pro-e, it only includes components 3 & 4. I cannot solve this loop.
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.
8 REPLIES 8
SylvainA.
4-Participant
(To:ptc-2268715)

You could maybe try to temporary remove Subassembly from Assembly 1, then open Subassembly in Pro/E, remove Assembly 1 from Subassembly and finally add Subassembly in Assembly 1.

Thank you for your message. My issue is when I open Subassembly, it does not include Assembly. But in Intralink it includes Assembly.
SylvainA.
4-Participant
(To:ptc-2268715)

OK. But what do you want to do: 1. Open Subassembly with Assembly 1 in it? 2. Remove Assembly 1 from subassembly? 3. Something else? If you want to do #2, my trick could help you

Correct structure should be: Assembly 1 -Subassembly -Component 1 -Component 2 Subassembly -Component 3 -Component 4. In both Intralink and Pro-E. Now, this structure in Intralink and Pro-E is shown in different. In Intralink, it is infinity loop. In Pro-e, it is correct for so far I can see. Look this issue; you will think problem happened in Intralink, I did tried to solve this problem in Intralink, the Intralink massage told me “CANNOT BE REMOVED AS THIS DEPENDENCY WAS NOT CREATED THROUGHT INTRALINKS�. The massage indicates the relationship was created in pro-E. I hope I description issue clearly.
SylvainA.
4-Participant
(To:ptc-2268715)

When you open Subassembly in Pro/E, do you have an error message like "Can't add an assembly to itself" ? Could you just try what I suggested above? (just to see if it works or not )

I do not know how you get there LEI. I tried to assemble some parts the way you explane its not possible.I am using WF 2.0. Hope any one has ans...
SylvainA.
4-Participant
(To:ptc-1769383)

It may be possible by working in two folders on a hard drive (create Assembly 1 and Subassembly in both folders) then mixing these assemblies. -folder A: Assembly1.asm contains "Subassembly.asm" (which doesn't contain Assembly1) + component1.prt + component2.prt -folder B: Subassembly.asm (not the same as above) contains "Assembly1.asm" (not the same as above and doesn't contain Subassembly) + component3.prt + component4.prt Then you copy (from folder B to A) Subassembly.asm, component3.prt and component4.prt. If you try to open Assembly 1 from folder A you'll have a loop. Under Windchill you can maybe do this by working in your workspace, then Checking-in Assembly1, Subassembly (which doesn't contain Assembly1), component1 and component2, then you clean your workspace, you open Subassembly again, you create a new assembly called Assembly1 (you'll have a warning but you can override it) and you add it in Subassembly. You save Subassembly to your workspace then you go in your workspace, you tick Assembly1 and choose "Add to workspace" then you have to select the option Download instead of Reuse. You've got your loop I didn't try these but I thing it could "work".
SylvainA.
4-Participant
(To:SylvainA.)

In my last sentence I wanted to write "I think" of course...
Top Tags