Does anyone use the Explode in ERA? I find it very infuriating to use, to the point that it just doesn't get used is it just me or does anyone else find it less than enthralling?
Currently using ST9, are there any improvements in ST10?
often would be to much but we use it and it does the job what we need it for.
What I have seen is that the way of how parts are assembled is very importend to what is coming out from ERA
If all parts are grounded then now automatism can take place and explosion will not work as YOu expect t to do for You.
But if there are the proper relations in place then explosion will do a at least 75% job by itself.
What I would like to get from SE and explosion would be, to define the explosion within the sub assembly and to be able to use it in a upper level ASM too.
At the moment You have to do it from the top assembly downwards.
Also any revision and in that case when parts have changed should take over as much form older explosions as possible.
This not always is the case.
Thanks for the input, I agree with what you say, I think for me it's something that we don't use often, but when used it's that last 25% getting this where you want and exploded at the correct sub-level just seems to take an age, I find it far quicker to create a clone assembly and just manually re-adjust the mates etc. to produce an exploded version, which obviuosly creates a non-linked to the original model that needs to be maintained, but the exploded would need a similar amount of maintenace.
I've used Solid edge for 12 years and this seems to be area that's not improved enough to any extent for it to be considered a viable tool, when it's quicker not to use it, just my thoughts. I am interested to know what other people think about this feature?
if you are refering to "auto explode" yes - for the most part this is of no value.
but, overall... i have much experiance in ERA, Exploded views and dont have any issues with it. works just fine...
a bit more description of you actual detailed problem would be helpful.
I'm not having a real problem with it, apart from the fact it's quicker and easier to create exploded views by other means, I'm at a crossroads, should I continue to use it, what are the benefits, there seems to be none? Ok let me try to explain my reasoning: Using tool Z takes takes 10minutes using tool X takes 5minutes perhaps I should put tool Z in the bin? Ok I'm setting myself up for criticism here, but I am just interested to get some other opinions before making that trip to the bin.
but here I must agree woth @Johnson_BigMatt that before copy the ASM and change the mate values manually I would use the explode BUT in manual mode.
So at least You don't have a copy of ASM but You are still working in the original.
And manual explosion isn't that bad either.
But I also agree to You with "... this is something where developement really didn't improve anything for many years"
My thoughts were that with "Technical Publication" in ST10 better functions comein, but if this is an extra license to buy, most of us will not get it.
I used explode extensively over the years because our assemblies were quite large and complicated. Using exploded views in our assembly drawings was the only way to adequately illustrate how the assemblies were built. We also leveraged these exploded model configurations for our parts books which were supplied to our customers.
While I admit that the environment can be a bit quirky at times, once you learn how to create the exploded configurations, I find it fairly easy to use. I would NEVER consider creating a second assembly and moving the mates to accomplish this. If your assemblies are of any size, I would think this would be incredibly difficult. Not to mention creating an additional unlinked document that needs to be updated and managed.
There is no doubt it could be improved. The most hassle I experience is dealing with the flow lines. Specifically the flow lines when you explode parts and then jog them to the side. The flow lines in this situation do not behave as I think they should (they flip and become too complicated) and that results in the need to manually edit the flow lines, which can be tricky. Therefore, when possible, I avoid this situation.
Unless you build something as small and as simple as the valve they always use to demonstrate the auto explode, just forget it is even there. I think it is more difficult to fix what it does than to go from scratch with my own explode.
We work with lots of sub-weldments and sub-assemblies in our assemblies so the very first thing I do is to bind up all of the sub-weldments and sub-assemblies that you do not plan to explode. If you do explosion work and then come back and try to bind them, the explode will never behave properly after that point.
Then I work logically from outside in just as if I was disassembling the equipment. After each successive explode I save the configuration so that if I mess up I can always go back to the last good arrangement.
Here is an example of one of mine. I don't know how it compares in complexity to what you are doing.
As I said, it certainly could be improved, and except for some enhancements to allow you to edit the flow lines, it has not seen much improvement over the years. I have been using SE since V3.5, so I have seen a few versions. I have no idea how competing products perform in this area.
Hi @rehenryjr thanks this gives me some food for thought, I have an assembly that is similar in complexity to what you have shown and will require some exploded views, I think after reading your response I might not throw the towel in just yet with the explode tool. I think perhaps because many of the assembly tools have improved and are quite intuative to use, that using the explode environment does seem like taking a large step back! I hope I don't explode if it all goes wrong!