curious about Layouts

[DeanLong]

Hi all,

Just curious....

Layouts have been around since the beginning of Pro, promoted asa way to bridge the gap from 2D usersto the 3D users. Personally, I usedlayouts very early on in Pro...then as skels, Pubs and ECGsbecame more useful, better and easier, I abandoned their use.

Now that most of us are familiar and comfortable with3D and more robust, graphical methods are available, do you still uselayouts extensively?

[DonSenchuk]

Aside from one VERY stubborn user, I haven't seen anyone use or have a use for them in ~8 years. I really can't imagine what purpose they serve that couldn't be better leveraged using other areas of the software.

[TimothyField]

I use layouts to pass parameters values in table format to multiple parts without the danger of unwanted dependencies.

I wish that 2D parametric sketching was available in layout even if it wasn't tied back to the 3D model.

Tim

[BrentDrysdale]

Hi Dan,
No. Not since Rev 16 for me and I think another group used it a bit back
around 2002. Basically though the idea made sense the sketcher was crap
compared to the even then sketcher in ProE proper.

I think our experience mirrors yours in that as the 3D tools came along we
went to them without a seconds hesitation. Been using those robustly ever
since.


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

[swschultz]

I still feel that layouts are a valuable tool for specific types of
products. There are numerous customers that I consult with where we have
introduced the use of layouts to control top level critical constraints of a
product such as a vehicle's wheelbase. These types of critical dimensions
are not something that you want to let the average Joe Engineer to have
access to making modifications to. The layout provides for a nice straight
forward interface to these values. Critical product dimensions can be placed
in a table on the layout. These dimensions are normally passed along to top
level skeleton models. There is no need to hunt and peck features in the
skeleton in an attempt to find these dimensions in the skeleton for
modification. They are right there easily found for modification if
necessary in the table on the layout. The layouts can obviously be locked
from a data management perspective so that only those with proper authority
can make changes to these critical product values.



Best Regards,



Scott Schultz

Principal Consultant

3D Relief Inc.

3700 Willow Creek Drive

Raleigh, NC 27604

(919)259-0610

-

[HugoHermans]

In my environment, designers started to use ProE using skeletons, publish and copy geometry features, tend to keep using this. Designers trained and coached to use layouts, stick to layouts. Both technologies are complementary, and very useful, but using both together is too much for some.
Since publish and copy are about geometry, and layouts are about parameters and relations, it's easier to get designers into publish and copy. But layouts are more flexible, although limited to parameters.

Met vriendelijke groeten, Best Regards,

Hugo.

[lylebeidler]

To add my 2 cents to what Scott said.We have a number of configure-to-order
products. Our fuel tank models get their driving information (through copy
geom & pub geom) from a skeleton, which in turn is linked to a drawing which
is a de facto layout (though it is a regular drawing, not a Layout).

This makes it very easy to

1) enter the required information quickly, all in one place

2) ensure that all required parameters have been entered - train the users
that their job isn't done until every value in the table is filled in.



That's not as simple if the user must fill in parameters in a 3d skeleton.

--



Lyle Beidler
MGS Inc
178 Muddy Creek Church Rd
Denver PA 17517
717-336-7528
Fax 717-336-0514
<">mailto:-> -
<">http://www.mgsincorporated.com>

[DonSenchuk]

I think Lyle touches on something very important here. The functionality of layouts can be accessed without usingthe actual layout fileat all.

In Reply to Lyle Beidler:

To add my 2 cents to what Scott said.We have a number of configure-to-order
products. Our fuel tank models get their driving information (through copy
geom & pub geom) from a skeleton, which in turn is linked to a drawing which
is a de facto layout (though it is a regular drawing, not a Layout).

This makes it very easy to

1) enter the required information quickly, all in one place

2) ensure that all required parameters have been entered - train the users
that their job isn't done until every value in the table is filled in.



That's not as simple if the user must fill in parameters in a 3d skeleton.

--



Lyle Beidler
MGS Inc
178 Muddy Creek Church Rd
Denver PA 17517
717-336-7528
Fax 717-336-0514
< -
< http://www.mgsincorporated.com

[TimMcLellan]

See attached email. The roller chain and welded chain provide a sample of
what sort of "layout" functionality can be leveraged in 3D. While the
example is a part, the concept can be applied to any system level design
object as well.



Please note the comments in the instructions about the parameters, editing,
and watching the changes update.



Tim McLellan
Mobius Innovation and Development, Inc.

[lylebeidler]

And I guess I should have mentioned that the biggest advantage, for us, is
that the parameter tables are on a drawing which shows the finished product.
Enter your values, regen, and you have immediate feedback on the
ramifications. IIRC, you cannot do that with Layouts, they are restricted
to datums & parameters only.



--



Lyle Beidler
MGS Inc
178 Muddy Creek Church Rd
Denver PA 17517
717-336-7528
Fax 717-336-0514
<">mailto:-> -
<">http://www.mgsincorporated.com>

[JWayman]

Don,
That's true to a certain extent. The (I think) important difference is that
one Drawing can drive one assembly or one part, whilst one Layout can drive
any number of assemblies or parts. Therein lies the power of the Layout.
Therein also lies the issue, since creating a layout is an even less
pleasurable experience than creating a drawing.

Regards,


John

_____

[kimndave9]

Not extensively, but layouts have their uses.

The use I've seen as valuable is as a repository of dimension values. Any item with a non-basic dimension can be linked to the layout value and maintain an independent tolerance. Skeletons and the like replace dimensions in a model and remove the referring model related tolerance. To ensure a fit between a hole and a shaft, the layout can carry the nominal size and the hole and shaft can still carry their tolerances. If using a skeleton between the two parts, the hole and shaft would be driven directly and have no associated tolerance on size. Or there is a relation required between the skeleton value and the feature dimension value, which is the same as the somewhat bad part of using a layout.

When a layout is viewed as a replacement or supplement for a sketch or a drawing, it seems poor in comparison. If viewed as a schematic where notes can explain the use of the values, they are a decent solution when the problem needs tight coupling only to values and not to geometry.

I would argue the suggestion that 3D graphical methods more robust for what layouts cover than layouts themselves. It isn't possible to alter a layout so that it doesn't regenerate, but the same is not so true for skeletons. Beyond that, it depends on the work one is doing to determine the value of any method.

Dave S.

In Reply to Dean Long:

Hi all,

Just curious....

Layouts have been around since the beginning of Pro, promoted asa way to bridge the gap from 2D usersto the 3D users. Personally, I usedlayouts very early on in Pro...then as skels, Pubs and ECGsbecame more useful, better and easier, I abandoned their use.

Now that most of us are familiar and comfortable with3D and more robust, graphical methods are available, do you still uselayouts extensively?

[DonSenchuk]

John,

(Replying in the forums just to keep readers up to date; I keep replying directly to user emails instead of posting.)

One can drive any number of parts and assemblies from a drawing in the same manner as a layout. It requires adding more models to the drawing, but after that the user can create tablesto drive dimensions and parameters in the parts and assemblies. I think a unique table has to be created for each part or assembly individually (while that part is active in the drawing, no less). If a user wants it to look like a single table,it's an easy enough taskto fakemultiple tables into looking like a single table. I'm unsure about tying a bunch of part features together through relations, and that brings me to the next point.

Thinking on it a bit more, it might even be most beneficial to have this type of drawing driving a skeleton, then the skeleton drives individual piece parts and assemblies. In this manner, all the relations used to drive dimensions across many different parts are located within the skeleton. When entries on the drawing table(s) are modified, the skeleton changes, driving any parts or assemblies tied to that skeleton. Though, I must admit, this is something I haven't tried, so I could be way off.

Having read Dean's summary, the resource allocation is an important point. Really big assemblies still have the ability to strain current workstations. Using the drawing method, users are most likely going to have views already established, which means pulling the entire assembly into session.

Regards,

Don

In Reply to John Wayman:

Don,
That's true to a certain extent. The (I think) important difference is that
one Drawing can drive one assembly or one part, whilst one Layout can drive
any number of assemblies or parts. Therein lies the power of the Layout.
Therein also lies the issue, since creating a layout is an even less
pleasurable experience than creating a drawing.

Regards,


John