Grouping Components for a Component Array NX 7.5?

[lorenolepi]

Is there a way to group components for a component array without making them a sub-assembly?

Example of what I'm trying to do...
In a tooling fixture we will have a base plate and a set of eight clamps...each clamp will have a screw and a set screw. (all components are from the re-use library) but they are not a sub-assy. The base plate has one threaded hole that is instanced arrayed eight times for the srew that holds down the clamp.

I really like to use the componet array using the "from instance feature" for the array deffinition because of the way it will atuomatically update when the number of holes change, instead of the circular array that needs to updated manually. The issue is that to have three components constrained to the one instance hole is some what of pain, because only the screw really lines up with it.

I was hoping that there would be a way like feature grouping. Where you could group the features and then do an array on the feaure group. I have tried to use the component group but it doesn't appear to allow me to select it when I choose component array.

Any input would be greatly appreciated!

 

[JohnRBaker]

A 'group' of components IS a 'sub-assembly'.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

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

 

[kerbosos]

The only way I can think to do what you want is to export all the components together as a parasolid then import the whole "wad" back in and use that "group" to create a new component.

I would recommend this only to create a drawing cartoon and make a parts callout on the F/D or BOM.

 

[lorenolepi]

Really John I expected a better response than that, if NX can't do it just say it...

Yes you are correct in the software a group of components is a sub-assembly but in REAL LIFE it is not a sub assembly because it is not called out in the parts list as a sub assy... just eight of each. They are assembled all at the same time. It would be silly to call out a sub-assy for every clamp/screw combo. Our models simulate what happens on the shop floor as well as our bill of materials.

Lets try this one again,
Is there a way to group components for a component array without making them a sub-assembly?

 

[JohnRBaker]

If all you're worried about is NOT seeing the Sub-Assembly itself in the Parts List but rather just its components, there's a way to control that. Just add a Part Attribute to the Sub-Assembly part file with the name PLIST_IGNORE_MEMBER with the value set to "on" (note that this must be Lower Case).

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

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

 

[lorenolepi]

That's a valid solution, I'm going to put in an ER to request this functionality added to the components grouping.
Thanks,
LB

 

[JohnRBaker]

Don't hold your breath on getting 'Component Groups' if your rational is to make Component Arrays work better for you, since we are in the process of replacing Component Arrays with a totally new scheme based on the Patterning tools introduced first in NX 7.5 Sketching and then in NX 8.0 Modeling. By the time we get Component 'Patterning' implemented I suspect that issues like this will have become non-issues.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

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

 

[lorenolepi]

I never hold my breath on ER's, but I think that its a good idea just to let them know what the customer is looking for out of their product. I hope that they keep the "from instanced feature" portion of the array in the new patterning that you speak of.

 

[kerbosos]

lorenopi,

Why does it matter so much what the model structure shows a sub-assy for clamp fasteners? Doesn't your drawing control the clamp hardware build up anyway?

Your response to John seems rather rude BTW.

 

[kerbosos]

OOOpss I mean lorenolepi...

 

[lorenolepi]

Kerbos,
The drawing does control the build but the parts list on the drawings are automatically populated from the model structure. We strive to have the models be as realistic as possible and to have another sub-assy that is not real doesn't match the way we do things. In my opinion its just manipulating the system to do what you want it to do = a "Band Aid". I was looking for a solution that wouldn't be a "Band-Aid" and is why I posted the question.

As far as my response... yeah it was intended to be a little rude. If you read the first line of the original post it was without having it be a sub-assy and I went on to describe the circumstance so you would see why it wasn't a sub-assy. If you read the rest of the post it was self evident that I realized that a group of components is a sub-assy. The response that was given originally was in my opinion was kind of a troll move... no insight, just insult. I wouldn't have been upset if it came from a regular user but coming from MR. NX himself is something different.In my opinion he is held to a higher standard than the rest of us. Overall I have nothing but respect for him and I still think he is the best of the best but if your going to respond to something, do it to be helpful.... and not to boost your own ego by just having your name on every post just to have to have it there.
His following comment was a good one and is one that is worth posting.

 

[lorenolepi]

Also we use teamcenter.

 

[kerbosos]

OK, thanks for the explanation.

 

[JohnRBaker]

But if your problem was a 'Parts List' problem, then why is the one I offered less than ideal? It's directed at exactly the problem that you had, that is wanting to include the contents of a particular sub-assembly in the Parts List AS IF the sub-assembly itself did NOT exist. BTW, this need is not unique to your situation thus the reason why this scheme of using an explicit attribute to control this even exists (and before you ask, the reason we use the attribute approach is because it can be applied on an instance by instance basis since there's already a global option which controls NOT SHOWING ANY sub-assemblies in a Parts List at all).

BTW, I had to learn this same lesson when I first started working with software developers. If you come to them because you have a problem, please state the actual problem first, BEFORE you start talking about a proposed solution, since many times, like in this case, there already may be a solution to what your real problem was.

Now getting back to the idea of a 'component group', my real problem with this is that it really adds little value. It would still require a set of steps not all that different than needed to create a sub-assembly. The resulting 'group' would have to be 'managed' (being able to name it, select it, hide it, delete it, ungroup it, etc.) which would add complexity to the system in terms of the UI, data structure, documentation, etc.

Now before I completely dismiss your original premise for the need of a 'component group' I will admit that you at least came to this as a result of something which could and should be improved and that is how easy is it to create a Component Array where I wish to use multiple components together in one step as easily as it would have been performing this on a single component. In fact, something like this has had to be done in the past with respect to using certain Feature types in Feature Arrays and how we solved it there was to use something called a 'feature group', but before someone says "if you did it for features, why didn't you do it for components", well we already had 'sub-assemblies' but be didn't have ANYTHING for Features so we HAD to invent something new. However, with the new Pattern Feature we've overcome those limitations and we hope to do that same with the 'Pattern Component' function once we get it implemented.

So may I ask that you hold off on making any requests and try using what we've already offered, and when we get closer to a 'Pattern Component' implementation I'll try and keep everyone up-to-date as to how we expect this to change the way issues like this are addressed. OK?

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

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

 

[JohnRBaker]

BTW, I should have included in my last reply an apology for coming off a bit abrupt in my first reply, as that was not my intention. Perhaps this was one of those times where if I had used a 100 words instead of only 7 (sometime brevity is it's own punishment), we all would have been better served ;-)

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

UG/NX Museum:

http://www.plmworld.org/p/cm/ld/fid=209

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

 

[lorenolepi]

Thanks for the response and I apologize for my response as well.