Simplified Reps or Family Tables?

[Jalipa]

<DIV>Straw poll: Simplified Reps or Family Tables. Which do you prefer?</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I've got twomulti-sheet drawings of assemblies, created by two different people. </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Each set is essentially one assembly, with a different iteration on each sheet.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>One has been created from a family table assembly.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>The other is from single assembly using simplified reps.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Which is "Best"?</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I'm curious as to what people think.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Jalipa</DIV>

 

[donha]

I do not know which one would be best. You are basically doing the same thing, suppressing components. Family tables and Simplified Reps are there for different reasons.Family Table better suits because you have different assy numbers for each variation of the assembly. The reason for Simplified Reps is to save assembly regeneration time/memory. If your assembly is huge, consideration to use both a family table and simplfied reps may be considered.

 

[Ascorti]

I have been on both ends of the spectrum with family tables and simplified reps. It has been my experience that family tables are best suited for things that have the same basic shape, such as screws or other hardware type items, because you have the ability to nest the table. This means that you can have a 1/4 x 20 screw in different lengths and also nest a table under each length with a different finish if needed.


Simplified reps work quite well for assemblies because of the ability to turn components on and off. Utilizing simplified reps makes regen time and memory usage somewhat less than family tables. When you open a model of a simplified rep, only the components required for that rep will regen and open. You also need to keep in mind that when you add components to a master rep, you will need to go back and update each rep in the model, turning the component on or off as needed.


These are just my thoughts.