Incrementing Features/Components

[Brndn_4]

I'm finding this a bit difficult to explain without being too specific, so bear with me.

I have an assembly that is basically two concentric circles and parts going between them. The problem I am having is with the part quantities themselves. There are 2 variations of the parts, also, which we'll refer to as A and B. Here's an example of a setup:

Offset from the horizontal by some random angle, I need to locate part A and I need to locate part B offset from that (A). I then would need another part A and maybe 3 part Bs. The sequence would be something like A B A BBB A BBB A BBB A B A. The parts would all be equally spaced (referencing a common point on each of them) around the circle(s), be it 360

 

[kenppy]

I'm not sure what you're looking for, if there is no pattern to this arrangement then it's no more difficult than having to assemble a number of different parts one at a time. Maybe I'm not seeing a pattern in what you describe, there appears to be a mirror of sorts.

 

[Brndn_4]

I'm not sure what you're looking for, if there is no
pattern to this arrangement then it's no more difficult than having to
assemble a number of different parts one at a time. Maybe I'm not
seeing a pattern in what you describe, there appears to be a mirror of
sorts.

I was battling distractions when writing that and I apparently missed out on something really important. Sorry about that.





The point to this is to automate the creation of an assembly and/or
features in assembly components driven from the needed configuration.
From what I gather, we have standard configurations (A & B
quantities) and would like the flexibility of modifying them for
something new or just for a setup of a master model. In a standard
configuration, we would have something like a total number of all
components, A & B,
and the differences being where each are located in the sequence, like
with my example. I was thinking there might be a way to sequence pattern
A per a desired total and the same for B
(say with parameters/relations and different features), yet still as a
function of 360

 

[Brndn_4]

Alright, I've played around with this a bit more and I think I can simplify things further. The easiest way to say it is, what would be the best way of going about an axial pattern where the entities can have different spacing? Assuming I have maybe 100 entities (cuts or components) and I don't want to unclick most of them in the pattern to only have around 20 something remaining, is there a way to make a variable pattern like that or another method that can be parameterized so that I say I want so many, put #1 here, #2 here (or offset 'this' far from #1 maybe), etc.?

I feel like I'm being a pain, but I always assume there's a decent way to do everything with Pro/E so I should ask before I potentially take 20 steps to do something inefficiently that should take 3.

 

[bfairhurst]

Sounds like you would like to have a configurable assembly. To do this would require Pro Program. You could set up two patterns, one for A and another for B, create a couple of parameters that you could use to control the patterns.

 

[dr_gallup]

I think you can convert your assembly pattern to a table pattern. I don't know about automatically filling in the missing A components with B components but you can manually get any spacing you want.

 

[tosh382]

I would determinethe number ofassemblies I am trying to create. Assemble all parts/assemblies each assembly has in common.


Then I would create a family table of that number ofinstances.


I would open each assembly instanceand assemble any additional parts or assemblies and save it.


Boom your done.


The KISS method.
Edited by: tosh382

 

[Brndn_4]

All,

Thanks for the insight.

bfairhurst,

If I had more time to mess with Pro/Program and/or just had more experience with it, I would like to look into that further. It sounds interesting.

Else,

The idea here is that I don't have to coordinate the creation of all different and expected pattern styles, but instead make it so the user can tweak certain parameters so that it does it for them on a case by case basis. Obviously that's not a simple task due to design criteria.

I did some more digging with the nature of the design and found out that the differences between items A and B are such that B is just an extension of A, for a lack of a better word. Therefore, I can create an axial pattern in a part of A's feature and create another axial pattern for part B's feature over top of it, tying the two patterns together with relations. From there, I can "untick" the entities I don't want manually to achieve the pattern I had previously described. I expect to just reference pattern the actual parts in the assembly when I get that far in the process. It would be nice to automate the "unticking" process, but it's still better than what was done before or nothing at all.


Edited by: Brndn_4

 

[Brndn_4]

I think you can convert your assembly
pattern to a table pattern.