Skip to main content
D
dzanella1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 15, 2010
Question

R: 24th level sub assembly

  • February 15, 2010
  • 9 replies
  • 3985 views
Ahhhhhhhhh, I get It, so I will try a more realistic paragon :

From my point of view, triing to open/modify a 25th object level,
is like open the garage, ( with the openers, of course 😉 ),
while you are still on the highway

Is better ? sounds good ?

I worked for CAT in Italy, and I work with proe since 98,
in a lot of different industries, from automation to tractor - to pavers,
with huge assemblies with tonns of parts, and I never ( NEVER )
face this issues,

but I repeat, maybe I am wrong,

But I would prefear that PTC spends his time ( and my money..... 😉 ) doing something more usefull than a 100th level modifiable assembly



----Messaggio originale----
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.

9 replies

I
iceblink11-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 15, 2010
Well assuming that you would not create a new level unless there are at least 2 items in the assy, you will have at least 2^24 parts in the assembly, which is equal to 16.7 million.

It does seem a bit excessive. I doubt anyone here has such an assembly.
If anybody does have one, you should contact the Guinness book of records!

Cheers,

Patrick Asselman

---- "daniele.zanella@tiscali.it" <daniele.zanella@tiscali.it> schreef:
> Ahhhhhhhhh, I get It, so I will try a more realistic paragon :
>
> From my point of view, triing to open/modify a 25th object level,
> is like open the garage, ( with the openers, of course 😉 ),
> while you are still on the highway
>
> Is better ? sounds good ?
>
> I worked for CAT in Italy, and I work with proe since 98,
> in a lot of different industries, from automation to tractor - to pavers,
> with huge assemblies with tonns of parts, and I never ( NEVER )
> face this issues,
>
> but I repeat, maybe I am wrong,
>
> But I would prefear that PTC spends his time ( and my money..... 😉 ) doing something more usefull than a 100th level modifiable assembly
>
>
>
> ----Messaggio originale----
D
dgschaefer21-Topaz II
21-Topaz II
February 15, 2010
I think its 2 parts each X 24 assys = 48 components.  It's not exponential.

Doug Schaefer
I
iturner1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 15, 2010
I think Patrick is right, if there are 2 assemblies at each level each with two assemblies the numbers are exponential e.g. 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 etc




Ian Turner

CAD Manager

Cobham Mission Equipment
J
JonathanHodgson13-Aquamarine
13-Aquamarine
February 15, 2010
Yes, but not every assembly has to have two subassemblies. Each subassembly could be made by adding just one component to the previous subassembly, which means you could have just 24 components (I think - may contain an off-by-one error!).

Obviously the likely "real" answer lies somewhere /between/ 24 and 16 777 216!

Jonathan


P
ptc-1153141-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 15, 2010

hmmm....I just created an assembly that went down 27 levels. Each assembly had one assembly andtwo parts (3 components)except for the 27th assembly which only hadtwo parts. Did a backup to an empty folderand there are only 81 files in the folder. 27 assemblies and 54 parts.

That's a far cry from 16.7 million.

B
BobFrindt1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 15, 2010
I thought the same thing. This could pop up if you were producing some
sort of laminated item.
Create a machined plate, laminate to another and machine it (assembly one)
Laminate again and machine (assembly two) etc, etc

I come up with a laminated device that has 25 layers (parts) and 24
assemblies.
Seems feasible.
Bob Frindt
Sr. Designer
Parker Hannifin Corporation
Parker Aerospace
Gas Turbine Fuel Systems Division
9200 Tyler Boulevard
Mentor, OH 44060 USA
direct (440) 954-8159
cell: (216) 990-8711
fax: (440) 954-8111
-
www.parker.com



"Hodgson, Jonathan P" <->
02/15/2010 10:03 AM
Please respond to
"Hodgson, Jonathan P" <->


To
-
cc

Subject
[proecad] - RE: R: 24th level sub assembly






Yes, but not every assembly has to have two subassemblies. Each
subassembly could be made by adding just one component to the previous
subassembly, which means you could have just 24 components (I think - may
contain an off-by-one error!).

Obviously the likely "real" answer lies somewhere /between/ 24 and 16 777
216!

Jonathan


S
23-Emerald III
StephenW23-Emerald III
23-Emerald III
February 15, 2010
Honestly it doesn't even have to be 2 parts to make an assy. Many a time I've used an assy to do machining on a welded assy or machining on a forged/cast part.



We have forged bodies here that are at least 6 levels deep. (1)Forging, (2)machining, (3)welding, (4)machining, (5)welding groove inlay, (6)final machining. Only at one of these levels are 2 separate parts (level 3 welding) used to for 6 levels. When it's all finished, it looks like a single part.



We mostly use merges for this sort of thing, but a merge is just like an assy only it is a lot easier to do complicated machining in a part than in an assy.



Once we get to the completed body level, there are about 4 or 5 levels of assy after that which include hardware and seals and assy into upper levels.



I'm up to about 10-11 levels. Not close to 24 but I can easily see a few more potential levels and I'm only doing 30+ yr old oilfield technology.


P
ptc-466741-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 15, 2010
Enough already ...




C
cfly1-Visitor
1-Visitor
February 15, 2010
Not really - if the second item in each level up were a part assembled to
the next subassembly, the minimum number of parts in the top level would
only be 25. I think it's quite conceivable to have that many levels. Even if
all levels above the bottom had two subassemblies with a minimum of two
parts each, the top level would have a minimum of 48 items.

Granted, those are unlikely scenarios, but any combination could be
conceived of with far fewer parts than 2^24.

Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement