Can any point me to good totorial that explain practical management of Face styles, Materials, and Gage table.
My problem is that I don't understand how face styles are organized relative to material styles.
Are face styles a subset of material, gage, or it's own thing?
I believe I figured out some of the confusion.
The check box "Associate with material" relates to a tab of the gage table. Not with the specific gage that is chosen or with the Excel table in general. (all three answers are possible with the current menu verbiage)
So in general, material associate to sheet metal tabs within the gage table
But that does not answer the question when the part is not sheet metal.
Now my main question is who owns the face styles. Is face style a quality of a material? For example, I don't see a face style for stainless, but when I pick the material right, stainless does display differently than mild steel.
Where this get's complicated for me is that I need to have Expanded metal, perforated plate, and diamond plate for carbon, stainless, and aluminum. In each case I have multiple thicknesses.
I also can't appear to use the provided diamond plate patten well enough to make it look like aluminum stainless or carbon.
Each Material definition has a face style associated with it that is stored in the material table file. Clicking on each material in the Material Table dialog shows you what face style is associated with it and allows modification or switching of the face style.
Are the materials stored in an un-related fashion? and it just happens to use the same file? Like I could create a face style using one material, store that face style, restore the material I used to create it to original, then use that face style on other materials?
In general, I'm trying to figure out how to create a face style, then apply that face style to many materials.
I would like to separate the issues of creating face styles and materials. Then relate the two later.
What I really am trying to do is create a face style for Expanded metal, and expanded metal rotated 90 deg. and diamond plate. Then I want to alter those into carbon, stainless, and aluminum. All will be for for multiple thicknesses of sheets. This also required some trickery for the weight calculations.
I also need to create custom hatching patterns so that expanded and diamond plate show up correctly in draft. I may need to create two versions of the hatching that is dependent on the scale being displayed in draft.
I think in your case the safest way to do that is creating sub folders in the Material Table (the one we use to link a material ( text variables + graphic variables ) to the part in ST7.
I also think is possible use the Part Painter command for that .... As it seems to be just a piece of the Material Table itself, available inside the part files as default, they could just be completed with other types and familiar names on it. Then you could export that, and merge with another part file that need them (by the Styles > Face Styles > Organize command )
The only 'problem' I see (for the expanded sheet example) is that you need to create Multi-Face Styles to apply the same texture over cilindrical, planar and irregular entities. But the Material Table would not help too much, as the graphical variables are applied in the whole part file (no individual body nor entity separation).
More precisely, you would need to (1) Duplicate the Steel material (Mtl Table of ST7), put that in a sub folder because the different weight and other relevant properties (' Steel - Expanded ') and ( 2 ) Create Face Styles for each kind of entity ( ' Steel - Expanded - Planar ' , ' Steel - Expanded - Cilindrical ' and ' Steel - Expanded - Irregular '... Then, for each kind of sheet metal design, you would need to pick the Material from the Table, and after that, choose and apply the suitable face style.
And the Fill Styles (for hatch on DFTs) would follow same logic ( i.e. ,under Steel Mtl, we just have 5 pre-determined styles choices. You would need to create multiple ones too).
Well ... hope all that doesnt sound too complicated ... And maybe there's a better way. In anyways, your case is very interesting.