Lets say I have a part and I want to make a part from that part with configurations. I have made inserted a part into a part file and made an asseblie from a part file but what I want to do is make a part with config's and then make a part from that part and not have it be a feature.
Because the base part is a cast. I model a cast part and then from that part i need to make a machined part. The DimXpertManger only works at the part level. I'm trying to make both part centric or model driven. I would like to separate them in order to have two models.
not 100% sure im understanding.....but, save as new name? then you have 2 seperate models that have no addition features??
the casting is a group of features and so is the machining. I would like to make the casting and machining to part files but I also have config's that
correlate.
If you search for cast vs machine configurations on here, or maybe just cast or castings, there's discussions on this.
I do my castings with configurations in one part file, works fine for what I do. I then have two drawings, one for as cast and one for machined, set up as two sheets in the same drawing file.
ok so youre trying to seperate the already completed file into one that only contains casting features and one that is only machining??? thats going to be tricky but very possible
usually for myself, i make the casting, save it as a parasolid then open that so it comes in a a single "imported" dummy feature. then setup my machining configs as needed.
If I do what you suggested, will I be able to have the two files config’ed together? One cast part number with material config’s correlating to the machine part number config’ed to the same material config?
you have gone too far to do what i have suggested now. what i believe you should do now is keep your single file as it is and make 2 config's. 1 for your casting and 1 for machining. then you can set up those 2 configs as needed. you can also do sub-config's if you needed as well. within your drawing(s) you are able to specify which config you want shown.
Mark,
Attached is a simple model with a part representing a casting containing two configuration. This casting part has been inserted into another part representing the machined part. The machined part also contains two configurations. Each machined configuration calls a specific cast configuration.
The methodology is as follows:
Hope this helps.
Model created in SW2013 SP3
Daen
This is how I would have done it. The suggested solution works very well and you keep things together/referenced in a good way. No need to export as parasolid and import as mentioned previously in the post.
Just to add. If you later want to have a working BOM on a drawing. You can insert a weldment feature and cut list to get the data from the inserted part (the cast part).
What's the benefit of this over having both the cast and machined configuratons in one part file? Why maintain two seperate part files?
thats how i see it. the more to maintain is just more problems. build it all together and use the configs and sub configs to separate. i only mentioned the parasolid because i do nothing to the cast after its modeled. if you need to edit the cast then skip that part.
That comes down to Product Data Management and your company's processes.
Yes you can wrap it all up in one file. But that causes headaches for the data management.
The scenario that drives the separate files is that the casting is a separate part made by separate processes and purchased separately. If you design the casting and have it manufactured (either by an outside source or an internal division) and that casting is then inventoried under its own part number it should be a separate file. It can be tracked much more easily as its own entity in PDM, Purchasing, Inventory, etc. The machining process takes the casting and turns it into a new part with a new part number.
If your process is to actually melt metal, cast the part, and machine the part all in one manufacturing process string then it should be captured under one part number and contained in one file. This also works for inventory / ERP because the part is never tracked / inventoried / or otherwise captured until the finished machining pops out the end of the process.
So the choice of whether to put all the features in one part file vs. multiple is not about SW capabilities, but rather driven by company processes.
Daen
Ah, PDM, something we don't use. Small companies and simple procedures are sometimes good.
Thanks for the explanation Daen.
You can't make a part from a part (insert part into part) and not have it be a feature. Why can't you just use configurations to do what you need?