【转帖】hide vs. suppressed in configurations vs. feature cu

yang686526

hide vs. suppressed in configurations vs. feature cut
we are attempting to come up with policy on how to best use a master assembly of our standard vehicle in other designs.  this vehicle is the backbone of many of our programs.  some programs take this vehicle assembly and add components to it.  however, some take the vehicle as delivered and strip some parts then replace with modified or new parts.  so this vehicle master assembly is always used in a next higher assembly.  question is for the projects requiring stripped parts the master assembly must not display the parts to be modified or replaced.  our options seem to be (1) hiding these parts in the nha (2) doing feature cuts of the parts in the nha (3) creating a configuration in the master assy with these components suppressed.  we can't hide because the mass props would reflect the hidden parts.  i'm not fond of feature cuts and think it is a bad practice.  creating the configs drives file size up and a model librarian has to be the one to perform this since it is a locked master assy.  does anyone have any clever ideas on how to best do this.  we are talking maybe 5-10 configs of the master, size is about 15-20 mb.  we want to keep the master in tact and in the product structure so smarteam can manage any updates that could occur on the master.  running sw 2007, about to go to 2008.
check out our whitepaper library.
i used to have to do something similar to what you're doing on a large assembly. i went the with the assembly cut myself, without having any problems.
what is it about the cuts that you think is so bad?
jeff mirisola, cswp, certified driveworks ae
jeeper,
at our company, we use a master assebly with configurations added to it from time to time.  to help deal with the file size restrictions, most features are only resolved to a "lightweight" level, reducing memory usage.  i'm not completely sure on its affect on file size because i have never tried fully resolving features for comparison.
if it were permitted, you could allow different workgroups to take a copy of the master assembly for themselves to update and configure as they please.  this might produce more files; however, each group could focus on their assembly.  the master assembly could remain as the foundation fo their products.  if at anytime the master was upgraded, they could quickly update their assembly using "replacement".
just a few ideas...
kyle chandler
you say that you can't use hide, because the mass propertiess would reflect the hidden parts. did you know that there is a checkbox marked "include hidden bodies/components" on the mass properties page? it is checked by default, clearing this will solve that problem!
trevor clarke. (r & d) scientific instruments.somerset. uk
sw2007x64 sp3.0 pentium p4 3.6ghz, 4gb ram ati firegl v7100 driver: 8.323.0.0
sw2007x32 sp4.0 pentium p4 3.6ghz, 2gb ram nvidia quadro fx 500 driver: 6.14.10.7756

cuts & hiding (display states) will allow you to manipulate the base assembly without having write access.  however, i don't think cuts will remove items from your base bom.
suppression will keep your base assembly bom current, but requires write access to base bom.  i highly recommend using a design table to control configs.
cuts most definetly will not remove the item from the bom.  so it's just like using hide, but more intensive since it has to render the item to cut it and adds another feature to resolve.  where just hiding it it's loaded and constrained, but not rendered.
to remove the parts from the bom your only real option is suppression.  you may have to remate some parts to distances, etc to make sure your master model stays constrained when suppressing these extra parts.  that may or may not be an issue though.
thetick has it right to definetly use a design table to manage the configs and suppresion states of parts.  otherwise it will get messy and screwed up in a heartbeat.