Using ViaCAD Pro V9, Mac build 1109.

The objective is to create multiple complex objects that have all of their properties/geometries editable at some later time.

The complex objects are combinations of primitive objects. For example, I used a cube, with a cylinder on top, and a cone on top of the cylinder. These three were constructed using convenient dimensions and were seperately joined with the "Add Solid" operator to form a single object. First, the cylinder and cone were joined, then that composite object was added to the cube.

The resulting history in Concept Explorer looks like:


If I examine any of the primitive parts, (the Block, Cone, or Cylinder) in the Inspector window, there is a "Data" tab that allows me to edit the dimensions of the primitive.

The goal is to create a copy of the complex object that still allows me to edit the dimensions of the underlying primitives.

1. Cut/Paste - this leaves me with no history as:


If I examine the "ACIS Solid", the Inspector window has no "Data" tab. I can change other properties under the "Display" and "Attributes" tabs, but not the dimensions of the primitives.

2. Duplicate Part with History
This, would seem to be the way to accomplish the desired action. But... when you "Duplicate Part with History", you have a part with the following in the Concept Explorer:



I can examine (and modify) the dimensions in the Inspector window, Data Tab for the Block_675. But... There is no "Data" Tab for the ACIS Solid_717 object.

3. Duplicate Part as Instance
If I "Duplicate Part as Instance", I see the instance created in the Concept Explorer and a Child-Links entry added to the master part.
Any edits to the master geometry are reflected in the instance. This is as I would expect.

4. Work-around to create a complete History
I did discover a work-around: If you export the selected part to an external file, then import the part from the (now) external file, you preserve the full editable history.
This works but is cumbersome to my thinking.

So... The "Duplicate Part with History" does not duplicate the part with the full history. It appears to only go one partial level deep?
I believe that this is an error. The "Duplicate with History" should preserve all of the history. To not preserve all of the history makes the current behavior useless.

I would argue that the current behavior of the Cut/Paste is marginally useful. The behavior I was expecting from Cut/Paste is what a correctly functioning "Duplicate with History" would be.
There would still be a seperate command to "Duplicate as Instance".

The current behavior where there is the creation of the uneditable "ACIS Solid_xxx" stubs could be separately retained, but I can't think of a reason to use it.

There are a number of situations where I have several similar, but not identical features, in a drawing. One example would be v-belt pulleys with an identical rims, but with different diameters.
I should be able to draw/construct one pulley, duplicate the part, then resize the diameter for the second pulley.

I am relatively new to using ViaCAD Pro, so is there something that I am not aware?
If you are interested, I have attached a ViaCAD file that illustrates the behavior
Thanks for your attention.
-Jess

Hello

One option workflow is to build each part in it's own separate file.

Create the assembly in a new file and then import the parts as ViaCAD parts as needed and position and modify as needed.

Regards

Jason

I guess the short answer is that it really depends in what you are modeling and what parts you want to retain features for and which ones you don't want to.

Alot of programs build assemblies from all separate parts in ViaCAD you can choose to put all your geometry in one file with layers for control or use separate files and build assemblies from imported parts.


if you have an example geometry in mind , we could give some suggested workflows and build ideas.

Regards

Jason

Most CAD programs have more than one way of doing anything at all, many are undocumented because users often improvise some method that achieves what they want to achieve with the contextual capabilities that they need. The notions of some utopian best practice or that the CAD program that you bought is a finished product is misleading, because not many jobs have the same context. One person's "best practice" is someone else's obstructive kludge. It's not unusual to disregard any future need for parametric editability, purely because there are no neutral formats that exchange it. That's why direct editing evolved, and why direct editing capability has been introduced to programs like VC/Shark. Sure, some people pontificate because they work in some software monoculture that frowns or sneers at multicultural CAD. The other thing to consider is that expertise has a value. Complaining that people aren't giving you their expertise isn't likely to change that, and as for what the program itself can or can't do: that's largely up to you. You're asking for tips and methods that aren't in the manual, and if you consider that that's a shortcoming of the program, programmers or publisher, that's perhaps something that should have played a part in your purchase decision. If you're trying to use the program in ways that aren't in the manual, it's not anybody else's responsibility to enlighten you, not even the people you bought it from. Your own innovation might be breaking new ground.

Extrudes vs. primitives won't offer the same variability because they're different modelling paradigms, parametric vs. constructive solid geometry. Extrudes are more versatile. Dead ends? See earlier comment about context. I've had problems when I've been careless about dependencies, but nothing is really terminal so it's a waste of time to throw up your hands and discard what you've already done.

VC/Shark is generic CAD, your complaint makes me think of someone buying a toolkit and then complaining that they've not been shown every way to use each tool.

Edited by user Friday, February 2, 2018 8:27:56 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Original poster here...

I suspect that the work-around may be the best we will get. In speculating on the implementation, I suspect that this is, or is related to the behavior of the ACIS core. This core is, as I understand, a purchased library that the Evolution Software developers then add the user-interface to.

So, Evolution may not have access to the paste/copy behavior that we are talking about. Yes, Evolution can submit a bug report to the ACIS people. But, they are at the mercy of ACIS to fix/change it.

I suspect that there is something about the observed behavior that is fundamental to the way the ACIS core is implemented. Changing a fundamental design element is hard, involved and would probably impact other things. It would be time-consuming to fix, so it won't be fixed unless there is a significant reason, (i.e.: percieved profit).

It would be interesting to see how other ACIS-derived products deal with this problem.