Another tid bit you might find interesting. We have a numbering scheme setup in vault that is five digits and a three digit suffix (i.e. P1001-100). Typically when you place a structural member using the frame generator it comes in like
P1001-100, P1001-101, P1001-102 and so on with the numbering scheme automatically picking the next available suffix number. What I stumbled on is because I have a column setup in the family table called "PART NUMBER" and this property is setup in my filename value sequence, as long as I have a value in the cell under the "PART NUMBER" column whether it is actual text or just spaces this value will trump the numbering scheme. Not sure why, but it does.
Go to the parameters table found under the manage tab of the ribbon, then RC on the row where the value is found. After the RC you will then have the option to choose Custom Property Format. That is where you will find the options to change your displayed output (Decimal or Fractional) and the precision. Hope this helps...
Thanks for the reply.
WIth your suggestion being in the part mode does that mean I have to republish this part back into the CC?
Invent-It_07 has suggested the right approach.
The good news is you don’t have to republish the part, but just edit the Family Template, as explained in the post below.
The caveat is that, the change in the template will apply just to the new frames inserted with Frame Generator.
In fact, the command Refresh for the frames inserted with Frame Generator propagate to the ones already inserted just the changes in the Family Table and not in the Family Template.
About the last point, I’m sorry, but I really didn’t get it.
Not sure if the post below can help.
If not, please, provide more details about the issue, and I’ll try to provide some suggestions.
Thanks and regards,
On my last point, I had that item check in my frame generator dialog window. All I was saying was by doing what I outlined it gave me the part number in the BOM that I was looking for. I don't think it was that check box seeing how it worked for the SS version, but not the carbon steel one until I added the spaces in the cell box I showed in my previous posting.
I looked at the link you gave me about the precision units and the only thing I can see I might have an issue with is when it says after makeing the changes to the part and saving it, when you replace it in the CC does it eliminate all of the extra collumns as well as all of the equations I have setup with in those columns?
Another interesting development is the one (only one of four) structural member when it is inserted using the frame generator, and the center orientation is selected comes in fine.
Yet if any of the outside offset ones are selected (with the exception to the center ones) the part has a gap between it and the center line. Can you explain why this is and how to fix it?
Thank you again.
If you follow the procedure of my post for changing the precision of G_L, this won’t eliminate all of the extra columns as well as all of the equations you have setup with in those columns.
By the way, you don’t need to trust me blindly .
Make a backup copy of one family and try the procedure with this family.
About the last issue, probably this could be related to the geometry of the part you have published, but it is not easy to say something without seeing the file.
If you want, you can attach the file you have published with the authoring settings already stored in the file and I’ll have a look to it.
Well, you haven't given me any reason so far not to trust you!!!
I will try the precision steps you suggested. I just had to ask, because I have invested a lot of work into these parts
to have them erase all of the settings I have made to this point.
Here is the file I published to the CC. What is weird is this file has the planes and axis right down the middle
and was created using one of the other members I published that is fine in this same scenario.
I’m sorry, but I could not find the reason for this behavior.
I suspect the problem is file related and not a general one.
Probably, recreating the part from scratch it should work fine.
I’ll ask our development to have a look to this and get back to you once I receive any news.
In the meantime, besides recreating the part from scratch and republish it, I can suggest the workaround you can see in the image below.
I know it’s not a great one, but I could not find anything better with the file you have sent me.
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register