Use Configurations or Display States to Hide Components?

Blog Post created by Glenn Schroeder on May 25, 2018

Like • Show 3 Likes3
Comment • 4

If the only variable will be the visibility of components I recommend hiding them with display states instead of suppressing them with configurations. While it may not always be the case, using display states will usually result in a smaller file size, but to me that's a secondary reason. If other components are mated to a suppressed component then those mates will be suppressed, which can obviously cause problems. The mates will remain in effect when a component is hidden in a display state. If there are any disadvantages to using display states I'm not aware of them.

Edit: Just because I wasn't aware of any disadvantages to using display states instead of configurations doesn't mean there aren't any. Please see the comments below. I mainly use display states to hide selected components that I don't want to show in a drawing view, so it's typically done after the Assembly is finished, but as Paul Risley said in the second paragraph, using display states as a design evolves can cause issues (although, the checkbox for "Hide new components when inactive" in the display state Properties will help with that), and I'll agree with him that configurations are easier to edit. And as Dan Pihlaja said, mixing configurations and display states can certainly get confusing. Configurations by themselves can get confusing, as far as that goes, especially if there are multiple layers of Assemblies.

It boils down to you taking the information here, both above and below, and choosing the best option for your situation.

Outcomes

Dan Pihlaja May 25, 2018 1:11 PM

Not picking in display states.....they have their place.

The problem (for me) is that, once you start adding in multiple configurations and multiple display states, things can get confusing real fast. Personally, I like to have 1 display state for 1 configuration. And generally, if I don't want a part shown, I also don't want that part to be in the calculation for mass/volume, etc. So if a part is not to be shown at some point, then I make sure that my mates are set up so that that particular part isn't a link in the chain of mates so that I can suppress it at will.

Actions

Paul Risley May 25, 2018 1:33 PM

The biggest down side to display states versus configurations is customer interaction. If I send out an assembly in a certain display state as an e-drawing, the possibility is there for an end user to click show all which in our case we would/could have 3 or more variable tool fixtures in 1 assembly and we only want to show 1 to our customer.

It really comes down to experience as well with configurations or display states. As you build up an assembly configurations offer better control of your design, if at the end of the lifecycle of the design, display states work pretty well.

This is just based on my experience if you have an assembly that ultimately will reach +1000 parts display states get hard to manage if you started at the 50 point mark. Every time you add or change parts you have to go through each display state to remove those you do not want to show. Whereas configure part is a quick option to suppress per configuration available immediately on insertion of part.

Actions

S. Casale May 25, 2018 3:20 PM

When I use display states, I specifically disable the link to configurations. It just causes confusion. I use display states for assembly drawings, when showing the installation process. Each Display state is specifically renamed.

For us, configurations are used for physical change in finished configuration(s). We also create a simplified configuration to suppress electrical boards (components) with lots of parts and wires. Saving usage time at NHA's (bottom up). SW hasn't figured out how to work SPEEDPAK properly with electrical or routing parts. (SpeedPak is complete JUNK with electrical routing)

Actions

Henk De Bruijn Aug 7, 2018 4:18 PM

I love Display States.

You can controll the visibility, but it can be complex (disadvantage).

When linking Displays to Configurations; visibility, materials and colors of Parts and Assemblies can be controlled for each Configuration. But,..... it will interfere if you already have assigned colors, before creating the Configurations.

Additionally, Display States can be confusing when "Configuration Specific Colors" are used.

I think using both at the same time is not possible.

And there is also some unpredictable behaviour if you have assigned different colors to different bodies in a mutibody-part.

I have not taken the time to figure this out, but still think Display States is a great tool.

Actions

4 Comments

Dan Pihlaja May 25, 2018 1:11 PM
Not picking in display states.....they have their place.

The problem (for me) is that, once you start adding in multiple configurations and multiple display states, things can get confusing real fast. Personally, I like to have 1 display state for 1 configuration. And generally, if I don't want a part shown, I also don't want that part to be in the calculation for mass/volume, etc. So if a part is not to be shown at some point, then I make sure that my mates are set up so that that particular part isn't a link in the chain of mates so that I can suppress it at will.
Like • Show 3 Likes3
Actions
Paul Risley May 25, 2018 1:33 PM
The biggest down side to display states versus configurations is customer interaction. If I send out an assembly in a certain display state as an e-drawing, the possibility is there for an end user to click show all which in our case we would/could have 3 or more variable tool fixtures in 1 assembly and we only want to show 1 to our customer.

It really comes down to experience as well with configurations or display states. As you build up an assembly configurations offer better control of your design, if at the end of the lifecycle of the design, display states work pretty well.

This is just based on my experience if you have an assembly that ultimately will reach +1000 parts display states get hard to manage if you started at the 50 point mark. Every time you add or change parts you have to go through each display state to remove those you do not want to show. Whereas configure part is a quick option to suppress per configuration available immediately on insertion of part.
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
S. Casale May 25, 2018 3:20 PM
When I use display states, I specifically disable the link to configurations. It just causes confusion. I use display states for assembly drawings, when showing the installation process. Each Display state is specifically renamed.

For us, configurations are used for physical change in finished configuration(s). We also create a simplified configuration to suppress electrical boards (components) with lots of parts and wires. Saving usage time at NHA's (bottom up). SW hasn't figured out how to work SPEEDPAK properly with electrical or routing parts. (SpeedPak is complete JUNK with electrical routing)
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
Henk De Bruijn Aug 7, 2018 4:18 PM
I love Display States.
You can controll the visibility, but it can be complex (disadvantage).
When linking Displays to Configurations; visibility, materials and colors of Parts and Assemblies can be controlled for each Configuration. But,..... it will interfere if you already have assigned colors, before creating the Configurations.
Additionally, Display States can be confusing when "Configuration Specific Colors" are used.
I think using both at the same time is not possible.
And there is also some unpredictable behaviour if you have assigned different colors to different bodies in a mutibody-part.
I have not taken the time to figure this out, but still think Display States is a great tool.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions

Use Configurations or Display States to Hide Components?

Outcomes

Related Content

Recommended Content

Incoming Links