Main Assembly Free [CRACKED] Download
Barbra Mothershed
When trying to open the main assembly of a project, sometimes it's difficult to track down the needed main assembly in the midst of a forest of assembly files. Especially when the assembly files were created by others and they use a differente naming convention.
To avoid spending to much time browsing and opening assembly files, only to find out it's not actually the main assembly, Creo could save in each assembly a flag to indicate if it's a top level assembly or not.
The procedure would be as this: when creating an assembly, set the flag as a top level assembly by default. Whenever an existing assembly is assembled into another assembly, automatically flag the assembled asembly as "Not Top Level Assembly".
"When trying to open the main assembly of a project, sometimes it's difficult to track down the needed main assembly in the midst of a forest of assembly files. Especially when the assembly files were created by others and they use a different naming convention."
A common naming convention is imperative to organizing assembly files and their components. If not using Windchill, then you also need an organized folder structure and creating a search_path file that locates files in their proper folders.
In our case in the mold industry as a mold design company that works for several mold companies that produce the molds, we have to adhere mostly to the several different naming conventions of the mold companies that requests our services. We cannot impose them our own naming convention. Also, when we import sub-systems to include in the mold, as is the case of hot-runners, since there are several different brands that produce hot-runners, when they export the assembly as a step file, the files are exported according to their naming convention, not according to ours. And they typically include dozens and dozzens of subassemblies.
So my problem is that I have a main assembly that consists of two subassemblies. These first and its mirror. The subassembly consists of 3 model states. It's just a couple of metal plates next to each other. In the first state I start of with 3 parts, in the second state it's 4 and in the third it's 5. The front and back plates don't go anywhere, it's the middle part that gets added.
The problem is that, in the main assembly, however I placed the subassembly that's how it will remain. So one is stuck in State2 and the other in State3. I do see change because if the one stuck in state2 gets changed to state3, it just leaves a blank space where a part used to be because it somehow can't generate the extra necessary material. If If I change the one stuck in state3 to state1, the remaining plates just float nearby. Here is an example.
Just a simple component > mirror > mirror on XY and then I made sure to mirror existing relationships. I saved all the mirrored parts. I wish it was just a problem with the mirror but the same problem also exists in the original subassembly.
I am looking for an efficient way of implementing "product configuration". The request is that I should put MANY nested sub-assemblies with many parts and make one product of them. Then in the product (top) assembly I should be able to add something like "configuration table" where I may change each of parameters of EACH part and EACH sub-assembly. By "parameter" I mean both f(x), iProperties, constraints and BOM levels. For an example I would like to disable hole in sub-assembly-X-part-Y, and suppress from visibility and BOM some bolt-B in sub-assembly-Z which is mated with that hole.
This change of configuration must be applied in top level assembly and MUST NOT modify the component files because they are used in other products, each having own configuration. The change however MAY ADD some configuration dependent information to component files as long as it does not affect it's use neither in drawings nor in other products where they are also subject of separate configuration.
I think I know what you are trying to do. You want to drive configurations at all levels from the top-level assembly like in SWX Configuration. Inventor Model States works differently. Each level's configuration is done within the author table at the level. Cross-part driving isn't allowed.
I need to get the name of the main assembly, MySolution.MyService, in the constructor of MySolution.MyLibrary. I've tried Assembly.* methods but I couldn't manage to do it. Any ideas how I can get the name?
Hi, I use the tool "Demote" on many occasions and it would be very interesting instead to create different subassemblies with exactly the same parts (on different main assemblies) and constraints (or in a different area on the same main assembly) be able to replace one of these parts with this Demote sub-assembly generate previously. Thanks.
Either way, I think it's a good idea. It would basically come in handy when you originally just had a Part in several locations, but at some point decide you actually need that Part plus a couple of other parts (such as fasteners, or complementing parts). The most efficient way to do this would be to make that "cluster" of parts into a sub-assembly, and place it everywhere that the part currently is. And if you don't yet have that sub-assembly made, the easiest way to do that would be to demote every instance of that Part into the same sub-assembly, and then just add the complementing parts to the sub-assembly.
Another thing that would come in handy is, if you already DO have the sub-assembly made, it would be handy if you could replace every instance of your Part with this sub-assembly containing the Part, and then specify which instance of the Part (if there are more than one in your sub-assembly) should take its place. Inventor would then replace every instance of your Part with the sub-assembly containing it, and then transfer all of the constraints applied to what used to be just a Part, to that same part within the sub-assembly.
It essentially does the following: You can select one or more part-occurrences inside your superior assembly, and then select a substitute-assembly containing that particular part (most likely created by demoting the first occurrence). Then, it replaces all selected occurrences by the selected substitute-assembly (i.e. one by one), and tries to restore the constraints applied to the original part-occurrences (i.e. "classic"-constraints; it doesn't care about that fancy new "joints")
The case you have shown in your screenshot is not exactly covered, as you have selected a set of parts that can be found alike inside your substitute-assembly, and want to replace this set of parts by only one subassembly.
When using the original "Demote"-Command, Inventor installs an occurrence-redirection inside you parent-assembly, so that grandparent-assemblies can resolve the demoted suboccurrence, if it already had some constraints applied to the original occurrence.
The following example uses the Type.Assembly property to get the currently executing assembly based on a type contained in that assembly. It also calls the GetExecutingAssembly method to show that it returns an Assembly object that represents the same assembly.
For performance reasons, you should call this method only when you do not know at design time what assembly is currently executing. The recommended way to retrieve an Assembly object that represents the current assembly is to use the Type.Assembly property of a type found in the assembly, as the following example illustrates.
Individually-addressable nano-electro-mechanical (NEMS) devices have been used to demonstrate sensitive mass detection to the single-proton level, as well as neutral-particle mass spectrometry. The cost of individually securing or patterning such devices is proportional to their number or the chip area covered. This limits statistical support for new research, as well as paths to the commercial availability of extraordinarily sensitive instruments. Field-directed assembly of synthesized nanowires addresses this problem and shows potential for low-cost, large-area coverage with NEMS devices. For positive dielectrophoresis (pDEP) as the main assembly director, the space of field, geometric and material parameters is large, with combinations that can serve either as directors or disruptors for directed assembly. We seek parameter values to obtain the best yield, by introducing a rational framework to reduce trial-and-error. We show that sorting the disruptors by severity and eliminating those weakly coupled to the director, allows reduction of the parameter space. The remaining disruptors are then represented compactly by dimensionless parameters. In the example protocol chosen, a single dimensionless parameter, the yield index, allows minimization of disruptors by the choice of frequency. Following this, the voltage may be selected to maximize the yield. Using this framework, we obtained 94% pre-clamped and 88% post-clamped yield over 57000 nanowire sites. Organizing the parameter space using a director-disruptor framework, with economy introduced by non-dimensional parameters, provides a path to controllably decrease the effort and cost of manufacturing nanoscale devices. This should help in the commercialization of individually addressable nanodevices.
How would the following solution be implemented? Would you need to put this code in each library assembly or just in the main assembly that is determining whether it is safe to call the library assembly based on whether or not it originates from a given intranet Web site? Also, who should call the CheckSite method - each library assembly or the main app?Here is the example and solution from a practice exam for the C# Specialist Exam 70-483 that I am referring to:
dd2b598166