I’m trying to work out the correct way of solving an intersection between a surface and a solid defined in a block instance of an externally-defined block. My issue is that the intersection command seems to return curves for intersections of all layers in the block instance - irrespective of the visibility state of the layer(s) concerned.
Our workflow is this: individual components are defined in files with (at least) two layers: one called “curves” and the other called “3d”. Once the designer has finished a part, they hide all non-3d layers and save; that file then becomes available to others for integration into larger, sub-assemblies - which can, in turn, be further nested into larger assemblies…There are several layers of nesting involved in creating the final machine.
In trying to resolve where parts clash - or don’t obey clearance design rules - in the top-level assembly I’ve created surfaces around protected areas and (using Bongo) animated the whole assembly. I can step Bongo to ticks of interest where I see parts visually penetrating the “protection surface”. To record the scale of the clash, I would like to simply do an intersect of the sub-assembly in question and the protection surface.
Unfortunately, if I try that I get a set of intersection curves which includes not only the (wanted) set of curves between the surface and the visible 3d part, but also a much larger, and unwanted, set of intersections between the surface and the data on any of the other layers in the referenced, and sub-referenced, blocks.
Short of importing the blocks wholesale into the macro assembly and manually deleting the unwanted layers, I can’t see any way of obtaining the desired outcome. Needless to say, doing that as part of the workflow seems unwise as it just begs for out-of date part problems…
In my simple world I’d like to be able to see a set of curves from the intersect command which are the result of the (locally defined) surface and the (externally defined) items on the visible layers only of externally-defined blocks.
I’m sure I’m being dumb - can anyone point me in the right direction to get the desired behaviour?