@RyanM, I agree that some sort of implementation of part configurations would be very useful. Perhaps it could be done in such a way that it avoided the pitfalls of the way they are sometimes used in SolidWorks where they were sometimes like a box of chocolates: you never knew what you were gonna get.
I'm sure I posted recently about creating a suppression variable for a feature in a part and then using that as the adjustable variable when placing the part in an assembly.
By doing this you could have a sort of configuration, although all would have the same document number in a parts list.
@bshand I here you, brother! Configurations are a nightmare in SW. Everyone uses them differently and its just a complete mess when you have to work within EPDM and BOM Management, and lets not even get into the change management aspect of things.
Ah, suppression by expression. Once again, this type of functionality has been around for a long time and worked against both components and features. Just not in SE because of the limited capabilities of the variable table. Now with ST9 these types of functions will be coming!
The video is from 2012 but this function was available way before that.
Here's another that is controlling components and parts list by Stephen Samuel, one of the top 3 presenters of NX. (Having chaired the NX Special Interest Group back in the days, I was proud to present Stephen with a 15 continous years of presentations at UG User Group and PLM World.) I great presenter for keeping things simple.
@bshand, I agree with you. Configuration is a very useful function in other software. It would be nice in Solid Edge too, FOP is good for this but we need a "FOP members in Master" option. In this case all members should be stored in master instead of populated members...
@Imics Careful about storing all the child parts in a family/master. You would end up with a 15MB+ bolt file for each instance of a bolt! We actaully had someone do that quite awhile back in SW with Configurations. It killed the performance of the assembly and it was only a 35ish part assembly.
You still want populated files but they need to be read-only and any attempt to modify should report that they are a member of a family (non-managed environment). NX has done this for years and years. (You utilize the internal spreadsheet function and build your family based on parameters you want to control, file location and file names.)
A managed environment is a different story. Unique numbers.
That's where SW overworked the config concept I think. Trying to build hundreds of sizes into one bolt style. But not sure why it's an inherent problem with managed because you could assign different part numbers to different configs and they claimed that it would work with PDM though I never experienced it. Had enough problems unmanaged with wrong configs coming in later.
Everybody says "Configuration" (storing members or manufacturing phase in master part) is bad, slow, unstable & etc... I don't think this. Inventor, works, cre-o uses this technology. Are they on wrong way? I don't think. There are lots of cases when "one model" is much better. SE is part of my heart, but FOP & FOA... Hmmm...
Yes, don't use thousands of members in configs, because of performance decreasing, but thousands of broken links aren't better...
Yes, coin has two sides as always. What I & our users want to see is simple: "FOP without populated members".