Stock / Finish physical 'shape' relation (62595)

[bcritchley]

I appreciate that this request falls in the Parametric/Family table 'use model', however, as a 'Product Idea' i thought I would raise it, as it maybe perceived at PTC as feasible/possible.

We would like a physical relationship between a Stock part (i.e a casting) and a finished part (i.e. machined casting), so if a Cast is modified, the related finished parts, could be automatically amended as well (i.e. a logo change embedded into the cast)

I am aware of the Stock/Finish relation function, but would like to request that this functionality be extended to the physical shape also. 

[PeterKehoe]

I'm not sure how you expect this to work. Do you want to specify some faces/features that should be the same on both? Or do you want to specify some faces/features that are unique to the finish-so are somehow re-applied if the stock is changed?

[bcritchley]

Hi Peter,

It's a good question.  The reality is that this doesn't suit the 'Explicit' modelling use model.  So in short, I have no solution to offer, only the 'Idea'.

I was hoping that it might spark some forum users thought processes (maybe even one of the PTC developers!) - and somebody may look at the idea and go 'I think we can do this via.....'

Your Idea about recognising specific machine features on a model, and sharing other features is a good start.  My thought would be more towards your first suggestion - Specify some faces/features that should be the same.

An example scenario might be that a customer has their logo 'cast' into the stock part of a valve body.  If there is many iterations derived from this cast (BSP, NPT etc...), then they need to be re-modelled should the company logo change.  My intention with this 'Idea' is to allow the iterations to have 'selected' features be driven by the 'Stock' model.

The key issue this presents is that you are then into a parametric methodology of modelling (family table, Instance/generic, configurations etc).  I just want to put it out there to see if there is any ideas or thoughts on an Explicit Modeling approach to this problem.

Thanks

Barry

[sjohnson-3]

We use Merge/Inheritance functionality for our castings and forgings with great success.  We model our casting/forging stock parts first and then create a new part with the first feature being a dependent merge of the stock part.  We then proceed with cut and hole features on the merged solid for our final machined part.

Should the stock part change we can identify via Windchill all of the dependent machined parts and see what was effected as the stock geometry changes are automatically passed to each one of them.

We use the same functionality for tooling and jigs as well. 

[olivierlp]

Hello,

We are archiving your idea as part of a general review. This action is based on the age of your idea and the total number of votes received, as per this announcement.

You can always post a new idea with all the details required in the form.

Thank you for your participation.