Hi all,
Sometimes I use small and deeply nested submodels just to make it easier to handle coordinate system transformations. For example, I might just put a liftarm and a pin into a submodel so that I can move them around together.
In these cases it is not always useful to show the submodel as a submodel in the building instructions. Hence, I would like to treat the submodel as inlined in LPub3D. However, I cannot find an option to achieve this. I can choose "Convert to callout", which can sometimes be used as a workaround, but not always, specifically with nested submodels. I can "Ignore this submodel", which does almost achieve what I want except that the parts are then also removed from the PLI. Or I can "Treat as part", which also almost does what I want except that the submodel is shown assembled in the PLI. What I need is something like "Treat as inlined". Is this possible somehow?
Thanks for your help
Lutz
(2019-04-06, 19:08)Lutz Gehlen Wrote: [ -> ]Sometimes I use small and deeply nested submodels just to make it easier to handle coordinate system transformations. For example, I might just put a liftarm and a pin into a submodel so that I can move them around together.
- If you use LDCad (recommended
) once you are done with your placement, inline the submodel (select submodel -> right click -> inline)
- Or you could use groups instead of submodels.
(2019-04-07, 11:16)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: [ -> ]- If you use LDCad (recommended ) once you are done with your placement, inline the submodel (select submodel -> right click -> inline)
- Or you could use groups instead of submodels.
Hi Philippe,
thanks for your reply. Inlining is not a good option if you want to retain the ability to move around the entire submodel. In fact, I like the file as it is :-), I hope to just make LPub3D treat it differently.
Maybe LDCad groups could be a workaround. I'll look into them and their corresponding meta commands. Unfortunately, the documentation of this feature is currently missing.
Thanks for your help and best wishes,
Lutz
(2019-04-06, 19:08)Lutz Gehlen Wrote: [ -> ]Hi all,
Sometimes I use small and deeply nested submodels just to make it easier to handle coordinate system transformations. For example, I might just put a liftarm and a pin into a submodel so that I can move them around together.
In these cases it is not always useful to show the submodel as a submodel in the building instructions. Hence, I would like to treat the submodel as inlined in LPub3D. However, I cannot find an option to achieve this. I can choose "Convert to callout", which can sometimes be used as a workaround, but not always, specifically with nested submodels. I can "Ignore this submodel", which does almost achieve what I want except that the parts are then also removed from the PLI. Or I can "Treat as part", which also almost does what I want except that the submodel is shown assembled in the PLI. What I need is something like "Treat as inlined". Is this possible somehow?
Thanks for your help
Lutz
Does the attached model achieve what you are aiming for?
It shows;
- two bricks as a sub-model done as a callout then
- placed on a single brick. Followed by
- the same sub-model (but ignored) and then
- using the LPUB PLI BEGIN SUB command twwice to insert the two parts from the ignored sub-model
- with a single brick, to list the three bricks in the part list
- the bill of materials at the end is correct.
David
(2019-04-07, 20:12)David Manley Wrote: [ -> ]Does the attached model achieve what you are aiming for?
It shows;
- two bricks as a sub-model done as a callout then
- placed on a single brick. Followed by
- the same sub-model (but ignored) and then
- using the LPUB PLI BEGIN SUB command twwice to insert the two parts from the ignored sub-model
- with a single brick, to list the three bricks in the part list
- the bill of materials at the end is correct.
David
Hi David,
very interesting, I would never have thought of such an approach. Yes, I think it does achieve what I am aiming for. I am not sure whether I want to apply it large scale, but it's certainly an eye-opener.
Thank you,
Lutz