Toolbox Lameness

Apology accepted. We all get worked up. We're all just working for a
better product, after all.

Matt

 

well done RSW...now come on matt be gracious and apologise for your part...

( no, actually I am just here for entertainment...)

 

I would pay for such a macro.

A few output options would be nice:

Thread display Simplified, Cosmetic or Schematic.
Different Color per standard.
Map Toolbox Part No and Description to defined Custom Properties.

But -- I can only dream of my problems being solved.

Regards
John Layne

 

Haven't written any code in so many years that I'd have
to depend on someone else writing the macro and paying
them for it.

I've been thinking of how to best clean up Toolbox parts
prior to puting them in a library. For threaded
fasteners, I'd make a new "copied" part for a given
diameter and head style. Then cut off the shank, leaving
only the head. Then round-trip the part through
Parasolids. This gets rid of all the Toolbox burden
(equations, feature tree, ridiculously long centerlines,
etc). Assign a realistic material property (which
Toolbox fails to do). Sketch a major diameter on the
bottom of the head and extrude to minimum standard
length. Then "save as" with a name that includes the
shank length. To create a different length, open the
master part, edit the shank length feature and "save
as" with a new descriptive name.

I'm going to do this by hand, if necessary, but I'd
gladly contribute (as I think others would) toward a
well-written macro.

Art W

 

That's a good list.

Here's what I'd do:

- Make each head type as a single part with all the sizes as
configurations
- Autocreate a design table
- Use the design table to build descriptions, part numbers, materials
- Make the parts as efficient as possible (removing small
fillets/chamfers, cosmetic thds and all the suppressed features that
wind up in Toolbox parts.)
- Make the parts as consistant as possible
- Make sure Mate References are in place

I know a lot of people don't like configs because they're sometimes
quirky, but inserting and patterning them is a snap, also automating
mass info population is probably the biggest benefit. If the library is
really just a static collection of parts, the configs shouldn't
misbehave. Plus you could send your library to
vendors/customers/contractors and not lose data. With the new Smart
Component functions in 06 (configurations basically select themselves
automatically depending on the size of the mating feature), configs are
definitely the way to go (IF smart comps work reliably - BIG "if").