Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
put the relevant parameter into the family table, here the volume is shown in cubic cms
VOL was defined in relations as vol=floor(pro_mp_volume)/1000
you can do something similar for weight View attachment 5237
It is not a good idea to put a calculated value in the family table. It will create confusion and be overidden by the relation. Only values that can be modified in the family table should be added to it.
It is not a good idea to put a calculated value in the family table. It will create confusion and be overidden by the relation. Only values that can be modified in the family table should be added to it.
I think this is what causes the confussion because not everyone realizes you have to. You may even need to regenrate twice to get the weight to update correctly. Edited by: kdem
I think this is what causes the confussion because not everyone realizes you have to. You may even need to regenrate twice to get the weight to update correctly.
Having a relation value in the family table makes it difficult for anyone coming into the part in a year or so to figure out what needs changed. When a calculated value is in a relation and the family table, it creates confusion because changing the values are not predictable.
Adding a relation controlled value to the family table will always be overridden when regenerated. So, when you need to make a change several years from now, a different person is making the changes, it's not exactly straight forward as to what needs changed.
This is simply not a good practice in my opinion and not really what a family table is for. The family table is for modifying features, dimensions, etc. of the instances. Not really for making a list for your viewing pleasure.
If you need to see a table that shows the mass of all family table items you may be better of to do it in a drawing and add a family table repeat region. Or, simply create a 3D note in the model with the weight parameter.
Having a relation value in the family table makes it difficult for anyone coming into the part in a year or so to figure out what needs changed. When a calculated value is in a relation and the family table, it creates confusion because changing the values are not predictable.
Adding a relation controlled value to the family table will always be overridden when regenerated. So, when you need to make a change several years from now, a different person is making the changes, it's not exactly straight forward as to what needs changed.
This is simply not a good practice in my opinion and not really what a family table is for. The family table is for modifying features, dimensions, etc. of the instances. Not really for making a list for your viewing pleasure.
If you need to see a table that shows the mass of all family table items you may be better of to do it in a drawing and add a family table repeat region. Or, simply create a 3D note in the model with the weight parameter.
The weight is not something, (at least in my case) that would be directly changed.
It would be the size of the part that I might change, which in turn will change the mass of the part. The family table reports this mass for each different instance. The parts that I use this for are modeled in inches, it is only the mass that I require a metric value.
Once this weight parameter has been added to the model and family table, it never, ever requires any modification or thought.
I think this is what causes the confussion because not everyone realizes you have to. You may even need to regenrate twice to get the weight to update correctly.
Having a relation value in the family table makes it difficult for anyone coming into the part in a year or so to figure out what needs changed. When a calculated value is in a relation and the family table, it creates confusion because changing the values are not predictable.
Adding a relation controlled value to the family table will always be overridden when regenerated. So, when you need to make a change several years from now, a different person is making the changes, it's not exactly straight forward as to what needs changed.
This is simply not a good practice in my opinion and not really what a family table is for. The family table is for modifying features, dimensions, etc. of the instances. Not really for making a list for your viewing pleasure.
If you need to see a table that shows the mass of all family table items you may be better of to do it in a drawing and add a family table repeat region. Or, simply create a 3D note in the model with the weight parameter.
The way we use family tables and relations is in such way that there are less varaible parameters left in the family table. When you put in the columns A till Z in the family table it is very hard to see which parameter does what. So therefore i write relations so that only the tree main parameters are left to be variable. Therefore it is a lot iesier for my colleagues to add a new instance because the design rules are captured in the relations.
Nevertheless i do not recommendent using family tables because PTC does not programmed this very goodalso. So using complex family tables give you a lot of problems and make you find a lot of bugs in the PTC software.
But the bad thing is that it's quite stupid that PTC did not mention it. It's quite usefull if you want to have a relation that is executed after regeneration of the geometry (ea. Mass or Center of gravity).
The weight is not something, (at least in my case) that would be directly changed.
It would be the size of the part that I might change, which in turn will change the mass of the part. The family table reports this mass for each different instance. The parts that I use this for are modeled in inches, it is only the mass that I require a metric value.
Once this weight parameter has been added to the model and family table, it never, ever requires any modification or thought.
[/QUOTE]
I guess I don't understand why you want to put the value (result of a relation) in the family table. It basically serves no purpose being there and is redundant.
I guEss I don't understand why you want to put the value (result of a relation) in the family table. It basically serves no purpose being there and is redundant.
Because then you can place the family table on a drawing. Then you can create a general drawing with some variable dimensionsthat point to the variables in the family table and then you also know the mass of this instance.
That should be "post regeneration". It got me too the first time I saw it. On the relations dialog box on the right below the relations window there is a dropdown list that has initial in it. Change it to post regeneration and you can specify relations to be evaluated after the model is regenerated.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
