Cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Ideas or solutions to avoid losing assembly constraints on structure changes

Phenom
Phenom

Hi,

I've this very simple assembly example to explain my problem.

This is the actually assembly structure :

Assembly1

-Part1

-Part2

-Part3

 

Become

Assembly1

-Part1

-Part2

-Assembly2

 -Part3

 

During this level restructure, I lose all constraints between Part3 and the other parts.

If the assembly is simple like this example, I recreate the constraints, but today I moved a plate with lot of holes in a new structure (assembly2) because the plate is painted and for our MRP is a different code.

Now I've lost 523 constraints Smiley Mad.

Exist a solution / idea  /workaround / NX open program to avoid in constraints loosing ?

 

Thank you...

Using NX1867
RuleDesigner PDM

7 REPLIES 7

Re: Ideas or solutions to avoid losing assembly constraints on structure changes

Pioneer
Pioneer

Have you tried this ?:

- build your assy 2 separately

- In your assy1, use replace component to change part3 for assy2

 

Most the time replace component does a good job preserving constraints

 

Laurenj.

Re: Ideas or solutions to avoid losing assembly constraints on structure changes

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor

I haven't tried this but ...

 

 I "seem" to recall something like this - and there was a problem in that NX seemed confused that you were going to replace part3 in assembly1 with an assembly-2 who had a child part3. Maybe a circular reference type of situation.

 

Is it possible - with assembly1 open (and assembly2 not open) to do a save-as for part3 to some temporary name, part3temp, for example. Then you  would replace part3temp in assembly1 with assembly2 (containing child part3). if successful - then delete part3temp.

 

This just seems to be something I had to do some years and version ago ...

 

----------

 

Oops, I made a typo above (corrected now):

 

Then you would replace part3temp in assembly1 with assembly2

SteveA
DRT Mfg. Co. Inc.
www.drtusa.com
Win7x64 NX8.5.3.3

Re: Ideas or solutions to avoid losing assembly constraints on structure changes

Phenom
Phenom

@Lauren_j wrote:

Have you tried this ?:

- build your assy 2 separately

- In your assy1, use replace component to change part3 for assy2

 

Most the time replace component does a good job preserving constraints

 

Laurenj.


Hi Lauren,

what you have wrote is the normal standard workflow.

This is what I've done.

Why you have suggested this ?

You lose your constraints because, them change father/child relation.

Thank you...

Using NX1867
RuleDesigner PDM

Re: Ideas or solutions to avoid losing assembly constraints on structure changes

Phenom
Phenom

@SteveA wrote:

I haven't tried this but ...

 

 I "seem" to recall something like this - and there was a problem in that NX seemed confused that you were going to replace part3 in assembly1 with an assembly-2 who had a child part3. Maybe a circular reference type of situation.

 

Is it possible - with assembly1 open (and assembly2 not open) to do a save-as for part3 to some temporary name, part3temp, for example. Then you  would replace part3temp in assembly1 with assembly2 (containing child part3). if successful - then delete part3temp.

 

This just seems to be something I had to do some years and version ago ...

 

----------

 

Oops, I made a typo above (corrected now):

 

Then you would replace part3temp in assembly1 with assembly2


It's not a cicular reference.

It's normal lose relations because constraints have father / child relations and I've changed, but NX can try to reconnect if edges/faces have the same name, like the save as name.

Exist a NX journal that can help this situations ?

Thank you...

Using NX1867
RuleDesigner PDM

Re: Ideas or solutions to avoid losing assembly constraints on structure changes

Pioneer
Pioneer

Sorry for the misleading answer. I wasn't aware that the constraints would be lost anyway. Now that I tried it, I fully understand the depth of your trouble.

Re: Ideas or solutions to avoid losing assembly constraints on structure changes

Siemens Phenom Siemens Phenom
Siemens Phenom

When components are moved from one level to another, as was done here, the Assembly Constraints will be lost.  That's just the way NX works and it has always done that, even in the days before Assembly Constraints when we were still using Mating Conditions.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA

Re: Ideas or solutions to avoid losing assembly constraints on structure changes

Phenom
Phenom

@JohnRBaker wrote:

When components are moved from one level to another, as was done here, the Assembly Constraints will be lost.  That's just the way NX works and it has always done that, even in the days before Assembly Constraints when we were still using Mating Conditions.


Hi John,

I remember that when I was on NX3, there was situations where moving parts from one level to other, NX3 didn't lose Mating Conditions.

For example if part1 and part2 was related itself, changing together the level, they didn't lose Mating Conditions.

I'm not here to say that Mating Conditions are better then Assembly Constraints, but this is something that we lost with the new Assembly Constraints.

In our company, we make software for machinery and when we replace old software, we maintain the same functionality with new improvements.

Another suggestion when this happen (lose relation), show during the editing of Assembly Constraints, a ghost of what was used before, like during Edge Blend command that show lost edges.

 

Thank you...

Using NX1867
RuleDesigner PDM