Wrong parts counting in BOM
Can you share a design with that behavior?
If so, please export the assembly as a .f3z file and attach it to a post.
@nolan_slade are you saying that you were able to download the model and look at the BOM?
Because I get this message and just posted the problem on Slack.
Looking at your design, there is no way I would design an Aluminum Strut frame in Assembly mode with discrete external components. This would be a Hybrid design all day long!!!
I made a YouTube tutorial a few years ago that shows a much better approach (IMHO):
Interesting - I've tried uploading this F3Z on my machine, and the BOM quantities appear to be correct using both the Structured and Parts Only views. It would appear to be an issue with your data specifically. We'll continue to investigate, apologies for the inconvenience.
To expedite this a bit on our side - would you be able to enable text commands ("Show text commands" under the View options), then execute the data.prop text command, and then let me know the following two values from the command's output:
-
Space Collection
-
Root Product
@mrm1018 wrote:
If you're creating product definition for components within a company, there's absolutely nothing wrong with your approach. In fact, it is preferred, particularly within the realm of product data management and maintenence.
Can you explain that in more detail ?
Yes, as a general "textbook" statement, I agree with that. However, let's close that textbook for a moment and apply industry insight and context.
I am not disagreeing with the general statement you made, but based on my experience with such PDM systems, I would caution that an implementation that does not take industry-specific factors into account can do more harm than good!
Looking at what @leonardosantambrogio is designing, it looks to me like a frame built from an aluminum strut. Bosch, ITEM, 8020, just to name the most well-known manufacturers.
The aluminum frames often provide the structural backbone of machines, and then polycarbonate sheets are used to provide machine safety.
For reference, I've spent almost 40 years in manufacturing and 34 years of those as a mechatronics engineer, developing complex manufacturing automation systems.
Today I don't detail design machines anymore, but develop machinery and systems concepts. I develop cost models and write proposals. My go-to tool is Fusion.
However, the other 99.9% of the industry works with SolidWorks. In my company (~250 employees), I am the only Fusion user.
In SolidWorks, or Autodesk Inventor, you'd use the frame generator to create the frame. I've used SolidWorks since 1998 and don't know a single person who would design such a frame with individually modeled aluminum struts as external components.
The video I posted, which you should watch if you haven't, mimics the concepts of these frame generators but involves much more manual work. The "beauty" of it is that changing overall dimensions of such a frame structure - something that happens frequently in machine design - is very quick and fluent.
To get back to your "independently defined components" statement, what I often do is that this frame would be its own external document that then would get linked into an overall assembly file.
That file would then only contain other external assemblies and individual components.
For that sort of machinery design, breaking every single component into it's own external file would substantially slow down development.
It would also be extremely limiting if you would want to design a modular concept working with configurations.
Again, it really depends on how you implement working with external components.
For my work I use the full extend of Fusion's abilities and most if not all of my designs contain internal and external components and assemblies.
If you're interested I can explain the limitations of working purely with external components and configured designs in more detail.
@mrm1018 wrote:
...
Don't forget, you're the one that decided to critique the OP's approach to this project, when there was nothing wrong with his approach. It didn't match your preference, but like I said, there's nothing wrong with it.
It isn't per-se wrong. It is very inefficient, which is why no one in my industry uses that approach for an AL strut frame.
@mrm1018 wrote:
...
I mean, the separate part, assembly, drawing work flow Fusion is moving toward in their latest release...purposely steering folks away from the hybrid approach, kinda makes my point for me.
...
It does for product design!
As I explained, those kinds of frames are usually not used in product design. They are mostly used in one-off machine designs and are created with a specific tool set for it.
@mrm1018 wrote:
I know where they're used. I've used them in small run production designs.
Again, the guy had a specific problem...there was no need to critique his approach because there's nothing wrong with it.
I see your posts on the forum, it's not first time you cross the line between helping with a specific issue and what you did here. Something for you to be mindful of.
Let me first make clear that I am not interested in a "back-and-forth" either, but I would like to continue that discussion.
Of course, I am biased by my experience in my industry. I reread the thread and don't see where I told the OP that his approach is wrong, though it can be interpreted that way.
I also provided my background and a hands-on example that the OP can follow and decide which better suits his work environment and his needs. That takes work!
You provided no explanation, but what I called a textbook response.
You chose to criticize my approach but did not provide any detailed reasoning or examples to help the OP make a decision.
You got work to do! The stage is all yours!
