Skip to main content
S
shanmugakarthik1-Visitor
1-Visitor
December 17, 2010
Question

Issues on doing External merge/inheritance of solid part

  • December 17, 2010
  • 4 replies
  • 1846 views


Hello all,

We have the practice of using casting model for maching model through inheritance option.

Is it possible to do merge/ inheritance of a part which has geom check? Or what kind of geom check will not allow us to do merge/inheritance?


Karthik S


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.

4 replies

D
DanielSantos1-Visitor
1-Visitor
December 17, 2010

Karthik,

The most important point about merge inheritance is theaccuracy setting.Are youusing Absolute accuracy?Does all parts have the same Absolute accuracy value?

Regards,

Daniel Santos - CAM Support

GE Vetco Gray - Jandira - A GE Oil&Gas Business
P
ptc-19327451-Visitor
1-Visitor
December 17, 2010
I believe that the merge is still possible but the geom check will only
cause worse problems. You must get rid of the geom check.



BTW, we stopped using merge/cutout, etc... about 10 years ago because
of mismatched accuracy for our tooling causing failures during part
modification. The problem gets really bad because you usually start out
with a small part (cavity) progressing to a really big part (die/mold)
this causes the die/mold to have a very small accuracy value or the
cavity to have a very large accuracy value unless of course you use
absolute accuracy. (We use .0001 abs accuracy (using inch units) for
all of our models. This is essential not only in mold design, but also
for NC machining.) Our parts are approx. 12"x10"x8" volume.



Instead of merge we use 'ext. copy geom' and copy over 'solid surfaces'
from the host part. Regardless of part accuracies, we can then solidify
the solid surfaces with absolutely no problems.



If you use a 'publish geom' feature to designate the solid surfaces to
copy, you can then modify the publish feature to incorporate new faces
on the host part without hosing the downstream part.





Christopher F. Gosnell



FPD Company

124 Hidden Valley Road

McMurray, PA 15317
P
ptc-5936191-Visitor
1-Visitor
December 17, 2010
Chris has pretty much nailed it with one exception. Because of the
nature of our product - minute details on a large model - we get a lot
of geom checks for small surfaces. To remove all these is not cost
effective or even possible. You can Publish and Copy Geom even with geom
checks.
P
ptc-1699471-Visitor
1-Visitor
April 18, 2011
Hi all,

As a result of a merger, we're on both SAP and Agile PLM/E1. We're also on Intralink 3.x w/Wildfire 2 with plans to go to Wildfire 5 very soon. Upper management is seriously considering moving to an Agile module called EC (Engineering collaboration) so that we're more closely integrated with Agile PLM (which will be the PLM tool in our future). EC is basically an MCAD connector that connects native CAD to PLM. I hadn't heard of EC, but after talking to some companies using it, it sounds like it's a good tool that has been made to work well with most CAD tools out there (by order of Larry Ellison). I've spoken with some users who have deep knowledge/experience with ProE who claim it's a very good tool. It cannot compete feature to feature with PDMLink, but it's a matter of weighing the benefits/losses of the lost functionality.

The question is should our PDM tool (Intralink/Agile EC) be more aligned with our PLM tool (Agile), or our CAD tool (ProE). I think the answer is our CAD tool (there are connectors out there that can integrate PDMLink with Agile too), but have found no hard evedince to not go to EC other then a gut feeling. If we were to go to PDMLink (hopefully 10.0), we would only use it as we use Intralink (which I loved, nice and simple). A data vault with rev and release level control, along with some built-in approvals.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the topic?

Thanks,
Stefan

Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement