Of course, I can't help but ask,
Why do you care?
NX will update the model properly and the part file is considered perfectly valid as we designed the software to work this way. At one time, if a blend 'lost an edge' due to some change in another feature, the Blend would fail to update and you'd be forced to edit it to get rid of the 'lost edge' from the blend's definition. We worked for years improving the reliability of model updates and one of the things that we did was to work out how to determine if we could simply ignore these sorts of 'lost references' if doing so would nave NO effect whatsoever on the validity of the final model or the robustness of future edits and updates. These sorts of behaviors, failing to update over an albeit irrelevant reference that was no longer applicable, was the sort of thing that gave 'feature-based modeling' a 'bad rep' and which is played up by people who have decided to take a purely 'history-free' approach to solid modeling (please don't confuse this with the options that we and Solid Edge offer as part of our 'Synchronous Modeling' technology). We always felt that it was our obligation to try and overcome these issues without having to give up the power of history-based modeling.
That being said, we did decide, in the spirit of 'full disclosure', that we would provide to the user an 'informational' notice whenever we had to take some sort of additional action which resulted in one of these "we had to ignore something" situations, such as this case where the notices states that: "One or more bland edges have been consumed by another feature, or suppressed". That's all it is, a notice that NX had to take some extra actions to assure that the model updated correctly and is still perfectly valid. Now if you insist on going into your model every time this happens to 'fix' the model so that the 'Informational' notice is removed, then we've totally wasted our time and resources trying to make NX update in a reliable fashion even when something that was beyond your control required some adjustment in one or more features of the model. All that is happening in this case is that an edge, which was blended prior to whatever edit or change was made which triggered this notice, is now no longer able to be blended because, timestamp wise, it no longer exists, something that is not all that uncommon a situation when editing Feature-Based models.
To put it another way;
JUST TRUST US! If there was a REAL issue with the model that could cause problems as a result of this last edit, NX would have never allowed that update to get this far.
Besides, what if the edit that prompted this message was itself an option that was built into your parametric model? For example, lets say that there is some optional feature which may or may not be needed in some variation of the final model, but in doing what was necessary to invoke that configuration some blend edge "was consumed or suppressed". If you were to then go back and edit the blends effected by this change and then later on it was decided that the configuration needed to go back to the original one, there would now be edges which are NOT blended but should have been, and that's much harder to detect. Think about it a minute. Think about Family of Parts where features are being turned ON and OFF as a normal course of business. Do you want to have put a lot of extra work into your models to assure that none of these 'information' notices would ever appear? That's what we had to do before we made NX tolerant to these sorts of changes, like blends losing their references.
Anyway, I hope you understand why I started this post with what on the surface looks like an outrageous question ;-)
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
