JoeyBlack
Mechanical
- Mar 6, 2015
- 1
Hello all,
I am designing parts with a high quantity of features (i.e. counterbored holes) that have their own variable sizes and locations. Vendors who will be making these parts need a useful report of this dimensional data to order tooling. In the past, with 2D drawings, we would simply place a drafting table on the face of the drawing which outlined this data (driven by expressions from Tools > Spreadsheet). With the shift to PMI in NX (we are using v9.0) I am trying to understand if there is a better way to communicate this, since a PMI table is not an option. We are also limited by the ability to translate drafting tables to alternative formats in the 3D environment. Surely, we should not expect the vendor to interrogate the entire model to garner this data.
Any ideas? Why did SPLMS forgo including table capability at all?
Thanks!
Joey
I am designing parts with a high quantity of features (i.e. counterbored holes) that have their own variable sizes and locations. Vendors who will be making these parts need a useful report of this dimensional data to order tooling. In the past, with 2D drawings, we would simply place a drafting table on the face of the drawing which outlined this data (driven by expressions from Tools > Spreadsheet). With the shift to PMI in NX (we are using v9.0) I am trying to understand if there is a better way to communicate this, since a PMI table is not an option. We are also limited by the ability to translate drafting tables to alternative formats in the 3D environment. Surely, we should not expect the vendor to interrogate the entire model to garner this data.
Any ideas? Why did SPLMS forgo including table capability at all?
Thanks!
Joey
