Wrong Feature Numbering
Wrong Feature Numbering
(OP)
I have a part with 509 features, but the final Feature Number Shows up as 538 i.e. Blend(538). The starting number of features is zero i.e. Datum Coordinate System(0). Can anybody explain why this skip in feature numbering occurs?
This was not the issue when I was using NX2.
Now I am using NX 4.0.4.2., and facing this problem frequently.
This was not the issue when I was using NX2.
Now I am using NX 4.0.4.2., and facing this problem frequently.





RE: Wrong Feature Numbering
"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
Ben Loosli
RE: Wrong Feature Numbering
All of the above also happened in NX2.
Lastly, and I don't mean this to sound rude, what difference does it make? Is there some reason that you need a perfectly accurate feature count? The only reason that I can think of is if you were referencing the feature numbers to speak about the model, in which case it would be wiser to rename the feature(s) of interest to something more meaningful.
RE: Wrong Feature Numbering
John Joyce
Tata Technologies
1675 Larimer St.
Denver, CO
www.myigetit.com
RE: Wrong Feature Numbering
RE: Wrong Feature Numbering
I got the "Reorder Feature" work-around from one of my colleague on the same day, which incidentally John Joyce also posted, thanks John.
Cowski,
Yes it will not make any differnce as such, but it will look odd when you see the model navigator, for example, I deleted all the features (containing 22 features) and started with datums, and first datum number was (22) !!
This is Bug from UGS.
RE: Wrong Feature Numbering
As features are created there's a running count kept of the numeric 'tag' which starts at '0' (there goes those computer guys again insisting that the first integer in a set is always 'zero') and is incremented as features are added to the model. However there is no attempt made to maintain, in real-time, a contiguous series of numeric tags with no gaps. As features are added and deleted, the count continues to increment, always moving up, in a relentless manner. There are several reasons for this, primarily in an attempt to minimize the impact on the interactive performance of the software due to avoiding any overhead maintaining a seamless count, potentially every time a feature is deleted or created. Besides, it was felt that having the numbers constantly changing could be confusing and distracting to the user. However, when features are reordered, there is no reason to even try and maintain any semblance of the old sequence of tags so we automatically do a compete re-sequence of the entire feature tree. Again, since there is no need to account for any gaps or local renumbering, but rather just doing a complete 'reset', the impact on performance is negligible.
Anyway, that's the situation and there are no plans to make any changes in this behavior. At best, we might consider adding an explicit re-sequence option, but again, we already have an easy to use, once you're aware of it, workaround so I wouldn't hold my breath.
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: Wrong Feature Numbering
Best Regards
Hudson
www.jamb.com.au
Nil Desperandum illegitimi non carborundum