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

Merged/separate feature option in Part files

Merged/separate feature option in Part files

Since this discussion came up I thought I would add this here.

I want to manage inseparable assemblies as a single part dataset. 

Welded jigs and fixtures, for instance, can be designed using common stock but should have the ability to remain unique pieces within the part file.

In sheet metal, it is common to add press-fit fasteners that can be created on the fly or inserted from UDF libraries.  These must hatch uniquely in drawings, and if at all possible, maintain the ability to explode on a drawing.

In the case of a 3-part fastener, you want the ability to explode said fastener yet not maintain 3 part files and 1 assembly file.

I feel PTC is behind the curve on this ability.  Consolidating files can be useful in design management as well as PDM BOM generation when corporate policy does not require, or even disallows part numbering of individual components used on inseparable assemblies.  Capabilities as described would streamline the designer's process significantly.  The assembly tree too would be less cluttered

The means of implementations would be a simple toggle added to the "add/remove" material function in feature creation as in "add/remove/separate".

New modeling functionality would add bullion functionality so a "tool" can be created with several commands and subtracted from a body at a later stage of the creation process.  One could literally model an EDM tool on the fly and use it to subract the tool body from the main part.

Drawing functionality should include the ability to explode the part object when more than 1 solid body exists.  By the same token, the part object should have individual cross-hatching for each solid body.

  • I will add that I am very pleased with the fact that I can now split a body into 2 with a cut in part mode and assembly mode which was a real limitation in the past. 

I suggest that this functionality is long overdue.  It is certainly not unique in the industry.

I am new to Creo but a long time Pro/E user up to 2000i.  I use the system at a very basic level and have found methods to deal with most challenges presented by the tool and documentation requirements.  This is one I cannot see a way around when it comes to utilizing 3rd party PDM solutions with stringent BOM generation directly from the CAD assembly model.  

If I am overlooking concepts developed over the last decade that I am not familiar with, please add this to the discussion. 

(and for completeness; I am not in favor of maintaining small clearances between components just to satisfy the limitation)

1 Comment
Community Manager
Status changed to: Archived