Family table instances and family tables

[TomD.inPDX]

Can I replace family table instances using family tables at the higher level assembly?

If so, how?

I am trying not to assemble multiple version of the varied part.

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.

[AndyHermanson]

You sure can. There are a couple of ways to do this but i suggest using instance lookup function. We use this all the time. I have included a link to a PTC doc. if you need more info. let me know and i can provide some more examples.

Also make sure not to forget step 3 in the link. You need to go into the Program and make that modification.

http://support.ptc.com/cs/cs_23/howto/rel1254/rel1254.htm

[TomD.inPDX]

Intereresting process. Not for the faint of heart.

[AndyHermanson]

Its not bad once you have tried it a couple of times. it really powerful and you can map multiple parameters from the part or subassembly to the upper level assembly.

Or you can manually do it. sorry for weird formatting.

Relations:

	IF PIXELS_HIGH == 16
		FRONT_VERT = "0M-205204"
	ELSE
	IF PIXELS_HIGH == 32
		FRONT_VERT = "0M-205778<0M-205204>"
	ELSE
	IF PIXELS_HIGH == 48
		FRONT_VERT = "0M-205779<0M-205204>"
	ELSE
	IF PIXELS_HIGH == 64
		FRONT_VERT = "0M-205782<0M-205204>"
	ELSE
	IF PIXELS_HIGH == 80
		FRONT_VERT = "0M-205784<0M-205204>"
	ELSE
	IF PIXELS_HIGH == 96
		FRONT_VERT = "0M-245481<0M-205204>"

	ELSE
		FRONT_VERT = "0M-205204"
	ENDIF
	ENDIF
	ENDIF
	ENDIF
	ENDIF
	ENDIF

Program: the bold FRONT_VERT below was originally the name of the part you want to swap with family table.

ADD PART (FRONT_VERT)

INTERNAL COMPONENT ID 50

END ADD

[dschenken · Accepted solution]

You can also just include the part in the assembly family table and instead of Y or N for the instance, use the desired part instance name.

The Program method is good if you want to use a relation to drive instance selection.

[TomD.inPDX]

Thanks David! And I always thought you could only toggle parts with this field in FTs.

Thanks Andy... not ready to tackle that one yet. I have a fab components that goes through 4 levels of iterations through subsequent levels. And my client is paying for my learning experience here. Unfortunately, it is not just a simple change from one to the next so flexible parts (assembly level) or assembly cuts are not a good option.

How do you guys manage all this -regen- of the FT instances?

I got it stable but it seems every time you touch a part, you have to update the FTs.

I also found some weird happenings as I changed instance names.

No warning; just seemingly arbitrary substitutions.

I am starting to remember why I never use FTs

Again, thanks. This is a great functionality for the rare occasion I need it.

[dschenken]

It's easest to understand how to use them where the items are ones you'd just substitute without much thinking.

For example bolts of a certain thread, but different lengths.

The more complicated they are, the more one has to pay attention.

One sneaky result of using FTs is that if the name you refer to doesn't exist in the FT then it will quietly substitute the generic, maybe toss a warning along with the other hundred or so going by so it isn't noticeable. Make sure the generic is something noteworthy.

Another thing is that if a feature would make the FT instance fail, it will be quietly suppressed. That's another fun one to debug.

Still, I can't say I've had a lot of trouble with them, but when they are made by users with little programming background who don't realize that Family means Family, and that they all are related, it can become an interesting knot to untangle.

I should write a book, but who would buy it? Besides, PTC developers should write the book.

[TomD.inPDX]

Yes, that's pretty much been my day. Makes sense now.

I am glad I don't have to sustain other people's work in Creo.

I would probably exclude 90% of Creo capabilities through policy simply because qualified Pro|E drafters are hard to find.