I originally managed to create a table that displayed the results of various analysis features and updated as the results changed but would not update as new analysis features were added. I was about to accept that this was the best I could do when I noticed the flexible geometry option. I was somewhat familiar with it but had never really used it...generally my focus is on advanced surfacing, style features, etc. it seemed that I might be able to use that functionality somehow to accomplish my task...
My company has a need to import customer geometry, evaluate it, capture misc. information (hole sizes, trim lengths, parting lines, shot weights, etc.) in addition to the normal BOM. All of this is used to generate quotes for the part. Traditionally, that information has been collected manually and then entered into a spreadsheet. Following this process though leaves a lot of room for error and results in spreadsheets/quotes that are in no way tied to the model geoemtry. When I joined the company, it occurred to me that PROE could capture this data in a manner that is stored with the file, can be displayed on a drawing, etc. so it is very clear what information was used to generate a quote.
As I indicated, my expertise is in advanced surfacing...not table creation, repeat regions, model parameters, etc. However, what I've managed to set up is:
- an assembly template into which any model can be assembled. When opened the template prompts for general project information such as customer name, part number, etc.
- I created "part" files such as drill_labor, mold_clamp, parting_line, etc. These files are assembled to the template in addition to the customer geometry as many times as necessary (e.g. one for each instance of the feature type). The part files are then converted to flexible geometry referencing the necessary features on the customer model to drive their dimensions. For instance, each example of drill_labor references a different drilled hole on the customer model. The same for all other labor related "parts"
- The part files also have parameters assigned such as labor_std (i.e. time alloted for each process), labor_rate, etc.
- I also have a part_dimensions part that can be converted to flexible geometry to capture the overall length, width, height of the customer geometry. This information is used to automatically help calculate press size, number of clamps, etc.
- The table template I've created has multiple repeat regions and filters to display different types of data. One for the BOM, another for labor related information, etc. "No duplicates" in the repeat region also covers common flexible geometry. So, for exampe, if some of the various hole sizes are the same I get a report that indicates a qty (X) of drilled holes of a given diameter. This applies to all of the flexible geometry cases.
- The table displays all of the related dimensions for each unique instance of flexible geometry. This includes, diameter, length, width, height, etc. It also displays the appropriate time standards, labor rates, etc.
Inserting the part files and converting them to flexible geoemtry really doesn't require a great deal more time than what was already being spent manually gathering the associated information. However, now we can have a parametrically driven table that updates as features are changed (granted references may need to be redefined). Additionally, since each "part" file has somewhat unique geometry we now have an indicator to show where the data was collected. In a nut shell, I have succeeded (in a round about way) of displaying feature related information in my table as I originally wanted.
Another advantage to handling my goals using flexible geometry (as opposed to simply displaying analysis results) is that now I have "part" files with parameters that can be updated as things change (time standards, labor rates, etc.).
One of my goals for this project was to set up something that an individual with potentially less advanced PROE capabilities could use. I believe I have accomplished that. I think there are still things that can be done to streamline the process further, but, I'm still in the process of sharing this with management at my company, evaluating whether it will meet our needs, etc. I think I've reached a point of diminishing returns until I get some buy-in from senior management.
Thanks for the interest. My apologies for the length of my reply.
David Surridge
