Once you have begun a route at a point, how then do you add a fitting on the starting point later? when i try to add one it says there is already one there when there isnt.
Routing starts with a component, and the line follows. Instead of starting with a route and adding its starting part, try starting with the part and extending the route from there. I am unfamiliar with your statement, "add a fitting on the starting point later".
As a suggestion to try otherwise, maybe try: extending a new route line past where you want it, placing your fitting on that new end point, then deleting the new extension line by the RMB Remove Pipe command, which then places your new component on the original end point.
There's always more than one solution, and likely more than one potential problem. Is your route definition and library proven with prior use, or newly implemented?
Its new and i am new to routing and i am seriously in need of some help from someone who understands it better than i do. I am really struggling with trying to add a lap flange over a stubb end. I can insert the stubb end and then click remove pipe which pulls it up to the flange but then I cant figure out how to assign the correct c and r points to a lap flange so that it will pop on top of the stubb end. If anyone has a little time to work with me for a few i sure would appreciate it.
Rpoint = route point = a point on the fitting that will sit on the route sketched out, in other words to help put the fitting actually ON the route.
Cpoint = connection point = the point needed to connect to something else = connected to a pipe. In other words on a typical flange you'll have 1 rpoint on the FOF and 1 cpoint on the backside of the flange where the pipe connects to. So if you put two flanges on a route facing each other then the pipe will stop at the back of the one flange and start on the back of the other, which is how it should be.
Yes you can start by either a fitting (e.g. a flange) or just with a pipe .
But take it from someone that's been using it for more then 7 years, do yourself a favour and never start with just a pipe. My advice is to create a phantom part, something that helps determine the size and such of the pipe to follow but that won't be included in the BOM, it will make life a whole deal easier.Think of it as a flange but without the features of a flanges.
I take it that you aren't in a situation that more experienced people can help you in person?
If you can, follow a training at your VAR or see if you can persuade your VAR to provide you with a routing manual.
Better still is getting the routing manual by Wes Mosier (The SolidWorks Routing Manual ). I was sceptic about it at first but it's the best 50USD that the company has ever spend. Don't let the fact that it hasn't been updated in awhile (2013) fool you. The things it can teach you and inform you about are still perfectly valid.
Have a nice one
Well put, Peter De Vlieger.
I particularly agree on the VAR training course due to the particularly detailed process of defining a specification and applying it equally within both components (including every part you will need.. before you need to insert it) and the Routing Library Manager. I ended up scrapping initial efforts and making a more thorough 2.0 version of my Routing Library. It is a tedious and thorough task to manage with both stability and broad flexibility of designs.
Involve your VAR whenever necessary, because I feel that's the primary value of subscription paid through them: it's their job to assist getting you up and running independently, or to be hand-on in letting you know what is wrong with your file so that you can proceed smoothly. At least, that's the ideal. VARs do differ; i.e. there are great ones and not-so-great ones.
One tiny lesson I learned by failure is not to subconfigure your Pipe.SLDPRT file. You can create multiple (root level) configurations if needed for multiple materials, but it does not handle subconfigurations at all. Out of context here, but example to show there are many small lessons to learn when adopting Routing, as my VAR helped correct my workflow.
Man oh man, the routing program is super super finicky and works so well for simple routes. But I will tell you, comlex electrical routes and adding communications with the vault. I have to say no amount of training will prepare a user for the headache it causes. This is a part of the program that really needs to be addressed and worked out by SW.
If only there were more than a small fraction of its user base to deliver improvements to, then it would more likely happen. I'm neither holding my breath nor squeaking my tiny wheel.
Tom Gagnon wrote:...due to the particularly detailed process of defining a specification and applying it equally within both components (including every part you will need.. before you need to insert it) and the Routing Library Manager...
Tom Gagnon wrote:
If you are lucky to have a VAR that is well versed enough in Routing to do that it's great. But I somehow doubt there's plenty of those around.
My VAR is good and very knowledgeable about all things but the finer details of setting up and what the pitfalls were or what to be careful off in Routing wasn't something they used to be well versed in.
Which is one reason that it took us a long time to get things sorted out and several overhauls of all are library components.
FYI, in my opinion the routing library manager is only good for a few things
the other tabs I don't have a use for :
I said it before and no doubt will say it again, once everything is set up just right and routing works as it should it's a dream to work with but when it doesn't.....(language not suited for polite company removed)
i understand the concept of it BUT we already have all of our Brennan adapters/ fittings created in our part library so incorporating routing into our system is going to be a huge undertaking for me to have to set up each of our parts with the correct reference points.
does anyone have any ideas how to do this faster then changing each fitting?
If consistent reference entities already exist, it could be possible to create a macro to run on each part, but that is far over my head, and also such consistencies rarely exist everywhere in the first place.
Although there may be a different answer, I find that individual attention to every configuration of every component is necessary for a robust and flaw-free routing library. It is this tedium which allows expedient future use in every conceivable arrangement.
Conversely, selecting or pruning whole sections (of configurations or of the design library or w/e) that are rarely used, to skip this attention can help focus attention on the parts you really need all the time. Then, when one of the rare components is needed, it is either mated in like a dumb part among the Route, or proper attention then applied to it to add to the Routing Library.
Edit: Configurations are fairly easy if and only if you're able to control it with a design table. Discrete components are handled individually.
You could do it in several ways but the only really good way is to actually look at each needed component and setting it up with thought and consideration put into it. Any other way will come back to bite you and most likely at a moment that you really don't have time to deal with it.
If your parts are well built then it shouldn't be that difficult to add the needed routing elements. It will however be a dull chore once you have figured out just what each part has to have and what you would like to have it show up in a BOM.
Retrieving data ...