×
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

Best practice for wave geometry link body

Best practice for wave geometry link body

Best practice for wave geometry link body

(OP)
Hi,
I've a wave geometry link body that simulate a milled cast iron part.
This part in NX is in effect an assembly.
The part is added as a reference set 'model'.
How do I avoid that if the milled part is used on an upper assembly level, some users can't see in any mode the cast iron, but only the milled part?
I do not like to use layers, I would ensure that in any way NX displays only the milled and not the raw.
If I use the promote body I have no problems, but there are people who do not want to use it and continue to use the geometry link body.

I use NX7.

Thank you...

Using NX 7.0.1.7 MP1 and TC8.1

RE: Best practice for wave geometry link body

For this particular type of application, Promotions ARE the recommended solution.  Why are these people against using Promotions?

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
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: Best practice for wave geometry link body

(OP)
Hi John,
old school are made old solution.
In this case, how can avoid that the cast iron can be made visible ?
Only solution is layer or something else ?

Thank you...

Using NX 7.0.1.7 MP1 and TC8.1

RE: Best practice for wave geometry link body

Use PROMOTIONS, like we recommend.

Don't expect us to go out of our way looking for work-arounds to 'problems' that wouldn't exist is you just used the software the way it was intended to be used.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
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: Best practice for wave geometry link body

File1-as cast
file2-machined - as cast brought in as a component, promote the body and add(subtract) machined material to create machined part
file3-assembly that uses the machined fle body

No wave links, straight forward, no 'extra' bodies, no layers to select or hide.
 

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

RE: Best practice for wave geometry link body

(OP)
Hi looslib,
I use this method, but colleague have made with weave geometry link body.
I'm looking for a solution to avoid that the cast can be made visible.
I tried to exclude the cast from reference set model, but in an top assembly, if I click on the cast, it begun visible and the cast override the machined part.
I found the solution to put the cast on a 41 layer, but the machined file had a TC workflow, so they are on read-only status.
 

Thank you...

Using NX 7.0.1.7 MP1 and TC8.1

RE: Best practice for wave geometry link body

John,

I think the reason people have gone away from using "promotion", is a misunderstanding, when Wave Links came about.  Many of us assumed (yeah, I know what happens when you do that...) that Wave was going to replace Promotions.  The env variable "UGII_CONVERT_PROMOTION_TO_LINKED_BODY" added to this, an easy way to convert the 'old' promotions into the 'new' linked body.  You can even turn off the ability to create promotions in the Customer Defaults, which again, could give a person the idea that they might be going away.  Administrators could turn on the convert variable, and dis-allow promotions, and force users into the perceived, new method.

Eventually some of us ran into issues with this, and you set us straight :)

-Dave

-Dave

NX 5.0.6.3mp7

RE: Best practice for wave geometry link body

(OP)
Yes Gunman,
this is what my colleague have told me.
I work with NX from one year and I read the help and forum and I learned best practice for modeling and more, but my colleague that has learned NX five years old, they have Gunman's info and works so.

Thank you...

Using NX 7.0.1.7 MP1 and TC8.1

RE: Best practice for wave geometry link body

We will admit that we are responsible for some of this 'paranoia' since when Promotions were first implemented, which was prior to any WAVE developments, they were based on an architecture which was not as efficient nor as reliable as was the later WAVE functionality.  And at the time, since it was the only tool that we had, customers used it to try and accomplish many different tasks and design workflows which required 'interpart' modeling.  It was when problems occurred and limitations were encountered that prompted us to revisit this need for 'interpart' modeling and from which grew the WAVE Linking approach, which admittedly at the time many people, including some of our own people, assumed would replace Promotions and so we worked hard on helping people to control which scheme to use and to eventually provide a means to convert Promotions to WAVE Links in those cases where WAVE turned out to be the best aolution.  However, along the way some of the behaviors which were peculiar to the way Promotions worked were seen to be advantageus and some of our early adopters of Promotions told us that while they liked WAVE Linking for much of what they had been doing with Promotions, that there were a few things the liked about Promotions and so they asked us NOT to obsolete the functionality and since it proved to be very difficult or at least not efficient to try to make WAVE act like Promotions without messing up the good things about WAVE, we dicided to leave it along and allow users to use both IF they wanted to.  Later we did go back and using some of what we had learned with WAVE we actually fixed most all of the reliability problems with Promotions and gave it a fully supported and modern architecture even though we never expected that it was ever going to be used as extensively as it once was.  So for those cases where it worked out best, well it was still going to be available for that.  And it turns out that the most common case is exactly the one you are describing, where I have a model, such as a forging or casting, which goes through a series of changes as we 'simulate' the manufacturing prcess and try to provide a valid, yet still associative, set of models for each of these manufacturing steps with the least amount of overhead and the least amount of extra file and data management to keep all the models up-to-date as changes are made at each step of the manufacturing process or when the original model is changed.  I've also been told that people who do a lot of welded structures have found that Promotions may offer them some advantages as well.

If there is one thing that perhaps we did wrong, it was when we made those last series of architectural changes where all of the weaknesses and reliability issues in Promotions were addressed, that perhaps we should have done a better job of 'promoting' (excuse the pun) Promotions, but the consensus was that this would only confuse people and it could even cause people to think that we made Promotion the preferred interpart modeling tool, which it is NOT for most situations, so we kind of let this go by without a lot of fanfare assuming that the people who already knew the advantages of Promotions over WAVE wouldn't need any help as they would figure it out for themselves.

However, that being said, now that you've been informed as to what approach SHOULD be used, it's really up to you to get the most out of it.  And asking us to recommended workarounds at this point does not really help you if it prevents you from using the system in the most efficient way possible.  I hope you understand what I'm saying and why I'm saying it.  

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
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: Best practice for wave geometry link body

I started using Promotions at version 11.1 when they were introduced. It did take some work to convince management that this was the way to go with our processes. We started using them on welded structures that were machined in the welded configuration.
Multiple piece part files brought into an assembly file for the weldment. The weldment brought into a new file, body promoted and material removed for the as machined condition. This file was then taken in 2 directions. One was for the manufacturing guys to use for their NC tapes and fixtures. The other was to the next higher assembly of our product.
When WAVE was introduced at v17(?) we never really considered it because we didn't have a lot of interpart relations that would take advantage of that methodology.
In our mind, WAVE was to be used if you needed to control relationships between parts by sharing expressions. Promotions was to be used if you only needed the static solid body at the next higher level.
 

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

RE: Best practice for wave geometry link body

What would be proper use if the following scenario.  We do this a lot in I-deas and use associative copy and I am new to NX

Promotion and or wave link?

File1-as cast
file2-machined - from file 1
file3-different machine from file two using file 1
file4 different machine from file two and three using file 1
file3-multiple assemblies that uses the machined file2 and or file 3 body?

RE: Best practice for wave geometry link body

I would use promotions for machining a cast model. It isn't any different than using a weldment for the machining.

Reason being that the cast model file is fixed and I don't need interpart expressions linking the 2 files with bi-directional updates. It is a one-way process from cast to machined. The fact that you have multiple machined versions from the same casting doesn't change it...unless the same machining operations are done on your other models. If you have some percentage (more than 50%, depending on complexity) of the machining is identical, then I would do a WAVE linked model from machining 1 to machining 2/3 and add the additional cuts. I might be tempted to make an intermediate promoted file of identical machining operations, then use that for your promoted machining 1/2/3 files. Commonality and complexity would be considered in the final choice.

 

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

RE: Best practice for wave geometry link body

Good Info  Our extra machine steps match about 90%  only 10% would be different.  How easy is it to update the machine parts when the RM changes?   SOunds like wave link would be our choice.  Can not wait to use the self paced training soon.
 

RE: Best practice for wave geometry link body

We use masses of WAVE linked parts and promotions and each suits a different application and how you company wishes to handle parts list and component procurement. The best way to handle WAVE linked parts that create an assembly is to use component suppression in the "milled" part to ommit the casting from ever being displayed at any other level until it is turned back on. remember though, in oreder to update wave links, you will have to un-suppress the casting. Hear is a video of how to use component supression for WAVE parts

http://screencast.com/t/a6qJVUNjnwk3

Best regards

Simon NX4.0.4.2 MP10 - TCEng 9.1.3.6.c - (NX7.5 native)

www.jcb.com

Life shouldn't be measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the number of times when it's taken away...

RE: Best practice for wave geometry link body

(OP)
Thank you JCBCad,
I suggested this solution to my colleague.
Thank you to give my the assurance of my idea.

Thank you...

Using NX 7.0.1.7 MP1 and TC8.1

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

White Paper: Industrial Control Basics: Contactors
A contactor is an electrical device used for switching an electrical circuit on or off. Considered to be a special type of relay, contactors are used in applications with higher current carrying capacity, while relays are used for lower current applications. Download Now
Research Report: State of IoT Adoption in Product Development 2019
This research report, based on a survey of 234 product development professionals, examines the current state of Internet of Things (IoT) adoption by product design teams, its perceived importance, and what features and capabilities teams consider important when making decision about adding IoT functionality to their products. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close