×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

problematic behavior with associative Measure Bodies feature

problematic behavior with associative Measure Bodies feature

problematic behavior with associative Measure Bodies feature

(OP)
NX6.0.1.5 MP1

One of the methods to obtain a MASS parameter and Attribute(say, to link to a drawing), that's been suggested by Siemens, involves the creation of an associative Measure Body feature.

It seems there is a bug or problem with how the feature works, when a body - initially part of the Measure Body feature - is deleted from the part.

Lets say you've got a part with three solid bodies.  Create an associative Body Measurement feature (Analysis > Measure Bodies (associative)) and select each of the three bodies.

Now, let's say that you actually need to create one of the bodies using a fundamentally different method.

If you delete the old body, the Body Measurement basically seems to crash - try to edit it, and it shows 0 bodies selected.

On the other hand, if you edit the Body Measurement feature FIRST, and de-select the offending body, the Measurement feature stays functional.  You could then add the new body to the measurement feature and move on.

Bottom line is that the Body Measurement feature would benefit from enhanced robustness by staying functional regardless of whether constituent bodies are deleted or manually removed from the measurement.

Anyone have any thoughts or experience with this issue?

 

RE: problematic behavior with associative Measure Bodies feature

I'm running from home at the moment and do not have access to a copy of NX 6.0.1.5, but when testing this using NX 6.0.2.8 and I delete one the multiple bodies referenced by a Measure Body feature, I get a notification that...

Deleting or editing these objects will affect other features or constraints in sketches.

...and selecting the 'Information' button gives me a screen listing the operation that I'm performing, in this case deleting one of the bodies, and the fact that this was a parent object of the Measure Body feature and that it has been affected by this operation.  Granted, there are no details as to exactly what this means, but it's not like we performed the operation with no user feedback whatsoever.   

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: problematic behavior with associative Measure Bodies feature

I've used these in the past and do find them problematic in ways that I'm not altogether critical of, but nevertheless could point out to you. Simply put if you create a body measurement for a largish assembly as an expression, you can for example use it to support associative text for the mass of that assembly shown in a note on the face of a drawing. The catch is that if you have the assemblies containing this opened you're going to want to suppress updating that measurement if you intend to change things otherwise recalculating the masses for every model edit will slow you down considerably. Most of the time changing the assembly structure results in the body measurement falling over on you anyway, and it all becomes too manual to maintain.

What occurs to me in dealing with this process is that the business of maintaining and presenting mass data on drawings and in parts lists is either something that I'm doing wrong or that the tools I have been using such as they are could be improved upon in terms of dealing with assembly masses as an aggregate of the component masses rather than requiring a body measurement since the current weight data appears only to be maintainable for solids rather than assemblies.

Best Regards

Hudson

www.jamb.com.au

Nil Desperandum illegitimi non carborundum

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources