loosing external references from surface

[laserman2000]

We use external surface copies on a regular basis for overmolded parts. Until WF2 it has worked really well.



Basically, we construct a part. The part is overmolded with
rubber. In assembly mode we activate one part, and make a surface
copies from a parent part into the new part, turn it solid and make
some cuts or add protrusions. That all works fine.



The problem comes when the parent part is changed. The new part
won't update the surface copy. If a we go in and redefine the
surface copy, it looks good in preview until we complete the
redefine. The new surfaces from the parent quilt don't appear
even after indiviual forced regeneration of each part in the
assembly. This has happened in 3 different independant assemblies.



I forgot to mention, the part was created in 2000i2 and has been substancially modified with both WF1 and WF2.



Does anyone have any ideas?



Thanks,

Laserman



Edited by: laserman2000

 

[mgnt8]

I've had this problem also, and it highlites the pitfalls of using external references in assemblies because PTC took Copy Geom away. I don't know how to fix the surface disappearing but you might try something else. Instead of directly copying the parent surface into the overmolded part, try to make a copy of the parent surfacein the parent part. Then,copy that parent surface copy in your overmolded part. So you have a copy (child) of a copy (parent) of a surface (parent)


If you modify the parent part, the parent surface copy will first update, then the overmolded surface copy will update. I don't know why, but this seems much more robust. Let me know how it goes because I'm still also figuring out the best way to shuffle shared geometry around assemblies without Copy Geom.

 

[laserman2000]

THANK GOD! Someone else outside of our company with the same
problem. I did try the surface copy in the parent you mentioned,
in fact, that is how we have always done it because it is more robust
and made failure mode easier to deal with. The surf copy in the
parent updated fine, but still didn't update child. During
redefinition of child it looked like it did until you accept it, then
it reverts back. The only way to get the change to go through we
have found is to create a new feature in child and reroute all
dependants in child model to the new surf copy. Tough when there
is 8 models with about 20 features depending on the failing feature.



All whinning aside, the next thing I was going to look into was the
shared geometry approach. I am in the process of learning
it. Does it seem to work for you?

 

[Moroso]

Laserman,


Really stupid questio, but are those assemblies and parts all in session and seeing each other?


I'm not trying to be a wise a** or anything but a guy who used tio work here would do all his assy work in one assy and all the mold design work in the mold design and the guy never assembled the assembly into the mold design. He would grab surfaces from one assy for models in the other assy, so he leaves and I come in to figure it all out. Needles to say if you had to modify something and regenerate the assembly the part would fail because the assy that had those references wasn't in session.


If that's not the case then disregard the above

 

[laserman2000]

HEHEHE, na, everything and it's brother is open (all 1.25 gigs of ram worth). I even opened the drawings just for giggles.

 

[donha]

I had this situationburn me once. I figured out what the problem was. If the reference (parts the geometry was copied from)are not active in memory and you do not regenerate all, your geometry will not update. I would have thought if the parts were children of the copied geometry, the parts would need to be called up in memory by Pro/E. Not the case. So, you must know which parts are required by the copy geometry.

 

[mgnt8]

Maybe everything isn't getting regenerated. Nonetheless, I believe Copy Geom is a wiser option in this case. From here someone else will have to continue assistance because I haven't been able to use Copy Geom since PTC snatched it away from us and started charging extra.