Instruction making rant

[Merlijn Wissink]

I like the idea with NEXT. But would you allow the parts in between the POS sections to be different (like different count or different references)? Because if so, what would you display in the PLI (and on which step)?

My idea was that the PLI would be based on the first (mandatory) set of pieces (thus, the ones before any optional POS commands). Any new pieces that appear in extra POS commands should be ignored in the PLI. They shouldn't be there in the first place anyway, but it can be gracefully handled by simply not showing them in PLI (they will of course show up in the assembly).

If you're hinting towards adding pieces to an existing buffer that need to be replaced together (e.g. you're adding a door to a model, then attach pieces to the door in the next step and only then close the door in the third step), that is indeed something that I honestly haven't thought about in my initial post. That's a good point   

I think the most logical way to solve that with the idea I posted above is by simply using multiple buffer definitions.

Thus, something like this:

Code:

0 BUFFER DEF START A
// Door in open position
0 BUFFER POS
// Door in closed position
0 BUFFER DEF END

0 STEP

0 BUFFER DEF START B
// Parts attached to open door
0 BUFFER POS
// Parts attached to closed door
0 BUFFER DEF END

0 STEP

0 BUFFER A NEXT
0 BUFFER B NEXT

Or, maybe by extending the buffer definition in some way, maybe something like this:

Code:

0 BUFFER DEF START A
// Door in open position
0 BUFFER POS
// Door in closed position
0 BUFFER DEF END

0 STEP

0 BUFFER EXT START A
// Parts attached to open door
0 BUFFER POS
// Parts attached to closed door
0 BUFFER EXT END

0 STEP

0 BUFFER A NEXT

I personally like the first one more, because it leaves less room for error. Though, it does make me wonder how that would need to be implemented in CAD software, since it's difficult to place parts in their final positions, while the final position of the previous buffer isn't visible yet (if that sentence makes sense, maybe I should make a visual example?). On the other hand, I don't know how much of an edge case this is, because I think most buffers will be used for simple stuff. On the other, other hand a more flexible buffer exchange like this with support for multiple positions of course might make more complicated buffer exchanges possible so...

If anyone has any good or better ideas, sure post them